Minding your steps: a cross-sectional pilot study using foot-worn inertial sensors and dual-task gait analysis to assess the cognitive status of older adults with mobility limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a critical aspect of our aging society. Yet, it receives inadequate intervention due to delayed or missed detection. Dual-task gait analysis is currently considered a solution to improve the early detection of cognitive impairment in clinical settings. Recently, our group proposed a new approach for the gait analysis resorting to inertial sensors placed on the shoes. This pilot study aimed to investigate the potential of this system to capture and differentiate gait performance in the presence of cognitive impairment based on single- and dual-task gait assessments. METHODS: We analyzed demographic and medical data, cognitive tests scores, physical tests scores, and gait metrics acquired from 29 older adults with mobility limitations. Gait metrics were extracted using the newly developed gait analysis approach and recorded in single- and dual-task conditions. Participants were stratified into two groups based on their Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) global cognitive scores. Statistical analysis was performed to assess differences between groups, discrimination ability, and association of gait metrics with cognitive performance. RESULTS: The addition of the cognitive task influenced gait performance of both groups, but the effect was higher in the group with cognitive impairment. Multiple dual-task costs, dual-task variability, and dual-task asymmetry metrics presented significant differences between groups. Also, several of these metrics provided acceptable discrimination ability and had a significant association with MoCA scores. The dual-task effect on gait speed explained the highest percentage of the variance in MoCA scores. None of the single-task gait metrics presented significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results show that the newly developed gait analysis solution based on foot-worn inertial sensors is a pertinent tool to evaluate gait metrics affected by the cognitive status of older adults relying on single- and dual-task gait assessments. Further evaluation with a larger and more diverse group is required to establish system feasibility and reliability in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT04587895).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".