Spatiotemporal gait analysis of patients with spinocerebellar ataxia types 3 and 10 using Inertial Measurement Units: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given the high morbidity related to the progression of gait deficits in spinocerebellar ataxias (SCA), there is a growing interest in identifying biomarkers that can guide early diagnosis and rehabilitation. Spatiotemporal parameter (STP) gait analysis using inertial measurement units (IMUs) has been increasingly studied in this context. This study evaluated STP profiles in SCA types 3 and 10, compared them to controls, and correlated them with clinical scales. IMU portable sensors were used to measure STPs under four gait conditions: self-selected pace (SSP), fast pace (FP), fast pace checking-boxes (FPCB), and fast pace with serial seven subtractions (FPS7). Compared to healthy subjects, both SCA groups had higher values for step time, variability, and swing time, with lower values for gait speed, cadence, and step length. We also found a reduction in speed gain capacity in both SCA groups compared to controls and an increase in speed dual-task cost in the SCA10 group. However, there were no significant differences between the SCA groups. Swing time, mean speed, and step length were correlated with disease severity, risk of falling and functionality in both clinical groups. In the SCA3 group, fear of falling was correlated with cadence. In the SCA10 group, results of the Montreal cognitive assessment test were correlated with step time, mean speed, and step length. These results show that individuals with SCA3 and SCA10 present a highly variable, short-stepped, slow gait pattern compared to healthy subjects, and their gait quality worsened with a fast pace, mainly with dual task involvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".