MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225123941 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.831063

Prediction of Freezing of Gait in Parkinson's Disease Using Unilateral and Bilateral Plantar-Pressure Data

2022· article· en· W4225123941 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Pardoel, Julie Nantel, Jonathan Kofman, Edward D. Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesUniversity of WaterlooWeston Brain Institute
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWearable computerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Freezing of gait (FOG) is an intermittent walking disturbance experienced by people with Parkinson's disease (PD). FOG has been linked to falling, injury, and overall reduced mobility. Wearable sensor-based devices can detect freezes already in progress and provide a cue to help the person resume walking. While this is helpful, predicting FOG episodes before onset and providing a timely cue may prevent the freeze from occurring. Wearable sensors mounted on various body parts have been used to develop FOG prediction systems. Despite the known asymmetry of PD motor symptom manifestation, the difference between the most affected side (MAS) and least affected side (LAS) is rarely considered in FOG detection and prediction studies. Methods: To examine the effect of using data from the MAS, LAS, or both limbs for FOG prediction, plantar pressure data were collected during a series of walking trials and used to extract time and frequency-based features. Three datasets were created using plantar pressure data from the MAS, LAS, and both sides together. ReliefF feature selection was performed. FOG prediction models were trained using the top 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 features for each dataset. Results: The best models were the MAS model with 15 features and the LAS and bilateral models with 5 features. The LAS model had the highest sensitivity (79.5%) and identified the highest percentage of FOG episodes (94.9%). The MAS model achieved the highest specificity (84.9%) and lowest false positive rate (1.9 false positives/walking trial). Overall, the bilateral model was best with 77.3% sensitivity and 82.9% specificity. In addition, the bilateral model identified 94.2% of FOG episodes an average of 0.8 s before FOG onset. Compared to the bilateral model, the LAS model had a higher false positive rate; however, the bilateral and LAS models were similar in all the other evaluation metrics. Conclusion: The LAS model would have similar FOG prediction performance to the bilateral model at the cost of slightly more false positives. Given the advantages of single sensor systems, the increased false positive rate may be acceptable to people with PD. Therefore, a single plantar pressure sensor placed on the LAS could be used to develop a FOG prediction system and produce performance similar to a bilateral system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207