Machine learning corroborates subjective ratings of walking and balance difficulty in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning can discern meaningful information from large datasets. Applying machine learning techniques to raw sensor data from instrumented walkways could automatically detect subtle changes in walking and balance. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurological disorder in which patients report varying degrees of walking and balance disruption. This study aimed to determine whether machine learning applied to walkway sensor data could classify severity of self-reported symptoms in MS patients. Ambulatory people with MS (n = 107) were asked to rate the severity of their walking and balance difficulties, from 1-No problems to 5-Extreme problems, using the MS-Impact Scale-29. Those who scored less than 3 (moderately) were assigned to the “mild” group (n = 35), and those scoring higher were in the “moderate” group (n = 72). Three machine learning algorithms were applied to classify the “mild” group from the “moderate” group. The classification achieved 78% accuracy, a precision of 85%, a recall of 90%, and an F1 score of 87% for distinguishing those people reporting mild from moderate walking and balance difficulty. This study demonstrates that machine learning models can reliably be applied to instrumented walkway data and distinguish severity of self-reported impairment in people with MS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".