Validity of the Walked Distance Estimated by Wearable Devices in Stroke Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health professionals need valid devices to assess a stroke individual’s ability to walk. The aim was to evaluate the validity of the estimation of the walked distance by wearable devices and the impact of the sensor’s position in stroke individuals. Methods: Post-stroke patients able to walk without human assistance were equipped with several wearable devices: pedometers, Actigraph, and Sensewear Armband placed according to the manufacturers' recommendations. Participants walked for 6 min at a comfortable speed wearing all sensors at the same time. We analyzed the validity of sensor-estimated distances according to their position using Bland–Altman analysis, root-mean-square error, and coefficient of correlation. Results: In total, 35 individuals were included (mean age = 65 ± 15 years). The best estimations were given by the Actigraph worn on the unaffected ankle (mean bias (MB) = 22.6 ± 32.4 m; p = 0.37) and by the pedometer worn on the unaffected hip (MB = 20.5 ± 24.6 m; p = 0.46). The other sensors and positions provided large estimation errors over 95 m (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study led to a recommendation of a pedometer worn on the unaffected hip or an Actigraph worn on the unaffected ankle to get a valid estimation of the distance walked by stroke individuals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".