Validation of Linear and Nonlinear Gait Variability Measures Derived From a Smartphone System Compared to a Gold-Standard Footswitch System During Overground Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smartphones, with embedded accelerometers, may be a viable method to monitor gait variability in the free-living environment. However, measurements estimated using smartphones must first be compared to known quantities to ensure validity. This study assessed the validity and reliability of smartphone-derived gait measures compared to a gold-standard footswitch system during overground walking. Seventeen adults completed three 8-minute overground walking trials during 3 separate visits. The stride time series was calculated as the time difference between consecutive right heel contact events within the footswitch and smartphone-accelerometry signals. Linear (average stride time, stride time standard deviation, and stride time coefficient of variation) and nonlinear (fractal scaling index, approximate entropy, and sample entropy) measures were calculated for each stride time series. Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement assessed agreement between systems. Intraclass correlation coefficients assessed reliability across visits. Bland-Altman plots revealed acceptable limits of agreement for all measures. Intraclass correlation coefficients revealed good-to-excellent reliability for both systems, except for fractal scaling index, which was moderate. The smartphone system is a valid method and performs similarly to gold-standard research equipment. These findings suggest the development and implementation of an inexpensive, easy-to-use, and ubiquitous telehealth instrument that may replace traditional laboratory equipment for use in the free-living environment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".