Grouping successive freezing of gait episodes has neutral to detrimental effect on freeze detection and prediction in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freezing of gait (FOG) is an intermittent walking disturbance experienced by people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Wearable FOG identification systems can improve gait and reduce the risk of falling due to FOG by detecting FOG in real-time and providing a cue to reduce freeze duration. However, FOG prediction and prevention is desirable. Datasets used to train machine learning models often generate ground truth FOG labels based on visual observation of specific lower limb movements (event-based definition) or an overall inability to walk effectively (period of gait disruption based definition). FOG definition ambiguity may affect model performance, especially with respect to multiple FOG in rapid succession. This research examined whether merging multiple freezes that occurred in rapid succession could improve FOG detection and prediction model performance. Plantar pressure and lower limb acceleration data were used to extract a feature set and train decision tree ensembles. FOG was labeled using an event-based definition. Additional datasets were then produced by merging FOG that occurred in rapid succession. A merging threshold was introduced where FOG that were separated by less than the merging threshold were merged into one episode. FOG detection and prediction models were trained for merging thresholds of 0, 1, 2, and 3 s. Merging slightly improved FOG detection model performance; however, for the prediction model, merging resulted in slightly later FOG identification and lower precision. FOG prediction models may benefit from using event-based FOG definitions and avoiding merging multiple FOG in rapid succession.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".