Validity and reliability of the DANU sports system for walking and running gait assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Gait assessments have traditionally been analysed in laboratory settings, but this may not reflect natural gait. Wearable technology may offer an alternative due to its versatility. The purpose of the study was to establish the validity and reliability of temporal gait outcomes calculated by the DANU sports system, against a 3D motion capture reference system. Approach . Forty-one healthy adults (26 M, 15 F, age 36.4 ± 11.8 years) completed a series of overground walking and jogging trials and 60 s treadmill walking and running trials at various speeds (8–14 km hr −1 ), participants returned for a second testing session to repeat the same testing. Main results . For validity, 1406 steps and 613 trials during overground and across all treadmill trials were analysed respectively. Temporal outcomes generated by the DANU sports system included ground contact time, swing time and stride time all demonstrated excellent agreement compared to the laboratory reference (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.900), aside from ground contact time during overground jogging which had good agreement (ICC = 0.778). For reliability, 666 overground and 511 treadmill trials across all speeds were examined. Test re-test agreement was excellent for all outcomes across treadmill trials (ICC > 0.900), except for swing time during treadmill walking which had good agreement (ICC = 0.886). Overground trials demonstrated moderate to good test re-test agreement (ICC = 0.672–0.750), which may be due to inherent variability of self-selected (rather than treadmill set) pacing between sessions. Significance . Overall, this study showed that temporal gait outcomes from the DANU Sports System had good to excellent validity and moderate to excellent reliability in healthy adults compared to an established laboratory reference.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".