Real-World Gait Detection Using a Wrist-Worn Inertial Sensor: Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wrist-worn inertial sensors are used in digital health for evaluating mobility in real-world environments. Preceding the estimation of spatiotemporal gait parameters within long-term recordings, gait detection is an important step to identify regions of interest where gait occurs, which requires robust algorithms due to the complexity of arm movements. While algorithms exist for other sensor positions, a comparative validation of algorithms applied to the wrist position on real-world data sets across different disease populations is missing. Furthermore, gait detection performance differences between the wrist and lower back position have not yet been explored but could yield valuable information regarding sensor position choice in clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate gait sequence (GS) detection algorithms developed for the wrist position against reference data acquired in a real-world context. In addition, this study aimed to compare the performance of algorithms applied to the wrist position to those applied to lower back-worn inertial sensors. METHODS: Participants with Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, proximal femoral fracture (hip fracture recovery), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure and healthy older adults (N=83) were monitored for 2.5 hours in the real-world using inertial sensors on the wrist, lower back, and feet including pressure insoles and infrared distance sensors as reference. In total, 10 algorithms for wrist-based gait detection were validated against a multisensor reference system and compared to gait detection performance using lower back-worn inertial sensors. RESULTS: The best-performing GS detection algorithm for the wrist showed a mean (per disease group) sensitivity ranging between 0.55 (SD 0.29) and 0.81 (SD 0.09) and a mean (per disease group) specificity ranging between 0.95 (SD 0.06) and 0.98 (SD 0.02). The mean relative absolute error of estimated walking time ranged between 8.9% (SD 7.1%) and 32.7% (SD 19.2%) per disease group for this algorithm as compared to the reference system. Gait detection performance from the best algorithm applied to the wrist inertial sensors was lower than for the best algorithms applied to the lower back, which yielded mean sensitivity between 0.71 (SD 0.12) and 0.91 (SD 0.04), mean specificity between 0.96 (SD 0.03) and 0.99 (SD 0.01), and a mean relative absolute error of estimated walking time between 6.3% (SD 5.4%) and 23.5% (SD 13%). Performance was lower in disease groups with major gait impairments (eg, patients recovering from hip fracture) and for patients using bilateral walking aids. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms applied to the wrist position can detect GSs with high performance in real-world environments. Those periods of interest in real-world recordings can facilitate gait parameter extraction and allow the quantification of gait duration distribution in everyday life. Our findings allow taking informed decisions on alternative positions for gait recording in clinical studies and public health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry 12246987; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12246987. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050785.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".