The Accuracy and Precision of Gait Spatio-Temporal Parameters Extracted from an Instrumented Sock during Treadmill and Overground Walking in Healthy Subjects and Patients with a Foot Impairment Secondary to Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to assess the accuracy and precision of a system combining an IMU-instrumented sock and a validated algorithm for the estimation of the spatio-temporal parameters of gait. A total of 25 healthy participants (HP) and 21 patients with foot impairments secondary to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) performed treadmill walking at three different speeds and overground walking at a comfortable speed. HP performed the assessment over two sessions. The proposed system's estimations of cadence (CAD), gait cycle duration (GCD), gait speed (GS), and stride length (SL) obtained for treadmill walking were validated versus those estimated with a motion capture system. The system was also compared with a well-established multi-IMU-based system for treadmill and overground walking. The results showed a good agreement between the motion capture system and the IMU-instrumented sock in estimating the spatio-temporal parameters during the treadmill walking at normal and fast speeds for both HP and PsA participants. The accuracy of GS and SL obtained from the IMU-instrumented sock was better compared to the established multi-IMU-based system in both groups. The precision (inter-session reliability) of the gait parameter estimations obtained from the IMU-instrumented sock was good to excellent for overground walking and treadmill walking at fast speeds, but moderate-to-good for slow and normal treadmill walking. The proposed IMU-instrumented sock offers a novel form factor addressing the wearability issues of IMUs and could potentially be used to measure spatio-temporal parameters under clinical conditions and free-living 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".