MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399373219 · doi:10.2196/52166

A Novel Approach for Improving Gait Speed Estimation Using a Single Inertial Measurement Unit Embedded in a Smartphone: Validity and Reliability Study

2024· article· en· W4399373219 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pei‐An Lee, Wanting Yu, Junhong Zhou, Timothy Tsai, Brad Manor, On‐Yee Lo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsInertial measurement unitReliability (semiconductor)GaitAccelerometerComputer scienceValidityGait analysisReliability engineeringUnit (ring theory)SimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyEngineeringStatisticsArtificial intelligencePsychometricsMedicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Gait speed is a valuable biomarker for mobility and overall health assessment. Existing methods to measure gait speed require expensive equipment or personnel assistance, limiting their use in unsupervised, daily-life conditions. The availability of smartphones equipped with a single inertial measurement unit (IMU) presents a viable and convenient method for measuring gait speed outside of laboratory and clinical settings. Previous works have used the inverted pendulum model to estimate gait speed using a non-smartphone-based IMU attached to the trunk. However, it is unclear whether and how this approach can estimate gait speed using the IMU embedded in a smartphone while being carried in a pants pocket during walking, especially under various walking conditions. Objective: This study aimed to validate and test the reliability of a smartphone IMU-based gait speed measurement placed in the user's front pants pocket in both healthy young and older adults while walking quietly (ie, normal walking) and walking while conducting a cognitive task (ie, dual-task walking). Methods: A custom-developed smartphone application (app) was used to record gait data from 12 young adults and 12 older adults during normal and dual-task walking. The validity and reliability of gait speed and step length estimations from the smartphone were compared with the gold standard GAITRite mat. A coefficient-based adjustment based upon a coefficient relative to the original estimation of step length was applied to improve the accuracy of gait speed estimation. The magnitude of error (ie, bias and limits of agreement) between the gait data from the smartphone and the GAITRite mat was calculated for each stride. The Passing-Bablok orthogonal regression model was used to provide agreement (ie, slopes and intercepts) between the smartphone and the GAITRite mat. Results: The gait speed measured by the smartphone was valid when compared to the GAITRite mat. The original limits of agreement were 0.50 m/s (an ideal value of 0 m/s), and the orthogonal regression analysis indicated a slope of 1.68 (an ideal value of 1) and an intercept of -0.70 (an ideal value of 0). After adjustment, the accuracy of the smartphone-derived gait speed estimation improved, with limits of agreement reduced to 0.34 m/s. The adjusted slope improved to 1.00, with an intercept of 0.03. The test-retest reliability of smartphone-derived gait speed was good to excellent within supervised laboratory settings and unsupervised home conditions. The adjustment coefficients were applicable to a wide range of step lengths and gait speeds. Conclusions: The inverted pendulum approach is a valid and reliable method for estimating gait speed from a smartphone IMU placed in the pockets of younger and older adults. Adjusting step length by a coefficient derived from the original estimation of step length successfully removed bias and improved the accuracy of gait speed estimation. This novel method has potential applications in various settings and populations, though fine-tuning may be necessary for specific data sets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→