Automated Accelerometer-Based Gait Event Detection During Multiple Running Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of the initial contact (IC) and toe off (TO) events are crucial components of running gait analyses. To evaluate running gait in real-world settings, robust gait event detection algorithms that are based on signals from wearable sensors are needed. In this study, algorithms for identifying gait events were developed for accelerometers that were placed on the foot and low back and validated against a gold standard force plate gait event detection method. These algorithms were automated to enable the processing of large quantities of data by accommodating variability in running patterns. An evaluation of the accuracy of the algorithms was done by comparing the magnitude and variability of the difference between the back and foot methods in different running conditions, including different speeds, foot strike patterns, and outdoor running surfaces. The results show the magnitude and variability of the back-foot difference was consistent across running conditions, suggesting that the gait event detection algorithms can be used in a variety of settings. As wearable technology allows for running gait analyses to move outside of the laboratory, the use of automated accelerometer-based gait event detection methods may be helpful in the real-time evaluation of running patterns in real world conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".