Statistical Analysis of Gait Rhythm in Patients With Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the gait variability in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), we first used the nonparametric Parzen-window method to estimate the probability density functions (PDFs) of stride interval and its two subphases (i.e., swing interval and stance interval). The gait rhythm standard deviation (sigma) parameters computed with the PDFs indicated that the gait variability is significantly increased in PD. Signal turns count (STC) was also derived from each outlier-processed gait rhythm time series to serve as a dominant feature, which could be used to characterize the gait variability in PD. Since it was observed that the statistical parameters of swing interval or stance interval were highly correlated with those of stride interval, this article only used the stride interval parameters, i.e., sigma(r) and STC(r) , to form the feature vector in the pattern classification experiments. The results evaluated with the leave-one-out cross-validation method demonstrated that the least squares support vector machine with polynomial kernels was able to provide a classification accurate rate of 90.32% and an area (Az) of 0.952 under the receiver operating characteristic curve, both of which were better than the results obtained with the linear discriminant analysis (accuracy: 67.74%, Az: 0.917). The features and the classifiers used in the present study could be useful for monitoring of the gait in PD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".