Rules-Based Real-Time Gait Event Detection Algorithm for Lower-Limb Prosthesis Users during Level-Ground and Ramp Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Real-time gait event detection (GED) using inertial sensors is important for applications such as remote gait assessments, intelligent assistive devices including microprocessor-based prostheses or exoskeletons, and gait training systems. GED algorithms using acceleration and/or angular velocity signals achieve reasonable performance; however, most are not suited for real-time applications involving clinical populations walking in free-living environments. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a real-time rules-based GED algorithm with low latency and high accuracy and sensitivity across different walking states and participant groups. The algorithm was evaluated using gait data collected from seven able-bodied (AB) and seven lower-limb prosthesis user (LLPU) participants for three walking states (level-ground walking (LGW), ramp ascent (RA), ramp descent (RD)). The performance (sensitivity and temporal error) was compared to a validated motion capture system. The overall sensitivity was 98.87% for AB and 97.05% and 93.51% for LLPU intact and prosthetic sides, respectively, across all walking states (LGW, RA, RD). The overall temporal error (in milliseconds) for both FS and FO was 10 (0, 20) for AB and 10 (0, 25) and 10 (0, 20) for the LLPU intact and prosthetic sides, respectively, across all walking states. Finally, the overall error (as a percentage of gait cycle) was 0.96 (0, 1.92) for AB and 0.83 (0, 2.08) and 0.83 (0, 1.66) for the LLPU intact and prosthetic sides, respectively, across all walking states. Compared to other studies and algorithms, the herein-developed algorithm concurrently achieves high sensitivity and low temporal error with near real-time detection of gait in both typical and clinical populations walking over a variety of terrains.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".