Gait Detection from a Wrist-Worn Sensor Using Machine Learning Methods: A Daily Living Study in Older Adults and People with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote assessment of the gait of older adults (OAs) during daily living using wrist-worn sensors has the potential to augment clinical care and mobility research. However, hand movements can degrade gait detection from wrist-sensor recordings. To address this challenge, we developed an anomaly detection algorithm and compared its performance to four previously published gait detection algorithms. Multiday accelerometer recordings from a wrist-worn and lower-back sensor (i.e., the “gold-standard” reference) were obtained in 30 OAs, 60% with Parkinson’s disease (PD). The area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) and the area under the precision−recall curve (AUPRC) were used to evaluate the performance of the algorithms. The anomaly detection algorithm obtained AUCs of 0.80 and 0.74 for OAs and PD, respectively, but AUPRCs of 0.23 and 0.31 for OAs and PD, respectively. The best performing detection algorithm, a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN), exhibited high AUCs (i.e., 0.94 for OAs and 0.89 for PD) but lower AUPRCs (i.e., 0.66 for OAs and 0.60 for PD), indicating trade-offs between precision and recall. When choosing a classification threshold of 0.9 (i.e., opting for high precision) for the DCNN algorithm, strong correlations (r > 0.8) were observed between daily living walking time estimates based on the lower-back (reference) sensor and the wrist sensor. Further, gait quality measures were significantly different in OAs and PD compared to healthy adults. These results demonstrate that daily living gait can be quantified using a wrist-worn sensor.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".