Comparison of Decision Tree and Long Short-Term Memory Approaches for Automated Foot Strike Detection in Lower Extremity Amputee Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foot strike detection is important when evaluating a person's gait characteristics. Accelerometer and gyroscope signals from smartphones have been used to train artificial intelligence (AI) models for automated foot strike detection in able-bodied and elderly populations. However, there is limited research on foot strike detection in lower limb amputees, who have a more variable and asymmetric gait. A novel method for automated foot strike detection in lower limb amputees was developed using raw accelerometer and gyroscope signals collected from a smartphone positioned at the posterior pelvis. Raw signals were used to train a decision tree model and long short-term memory (LSTM) model for automated foot strike detection. These models were developed using retrospective data (n = 72) collected with the TOHRC Walk Test app during a 6-min walk test (6MWT). An Android smartphone was placed on a posterior belt for each participant during the 6MWT to collect accelerometer and gyroscope signals at 50 Hz. The best model for foot strike identification was the LSTM with 100 hidden nodes in the LSTM layer, 50 hidden nodes in the dense layer, and a batch size of 64 (99.0% accuracy, 86.4% sensitivity, 99.4% specificity, and 83.7% precision). This research created a novel method for automated foot strike identification in lower extremity amputee populations that is equivalent to manual labelling and accessible for clinical use. Automated foot strike detection is required for stride analysis and to enable other AI applications, such as fall detection.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".