Quantifying Asymmetric Gait Pattern Changes Using a Hidden Markov Model Similarity Measure (HMM-SM) on Inertial Sensor Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wearable gait analysis systems using inertial sensors offer the potential for easy-to-use gait assessment in lab and free-living environments. This can enable objective long-term monitoring and decision making for individuals with gait disabilities. This study explores a novel approach that applies a hidden Markov model-based similarity measure (HMM-SM) to assess changes in gait patterns based on the gyroscope and accelerometer signals from just one or two inertial sensors. Eleven able-bodied individuals were equipped with a system which perturbed gait patterns by manipulating stance-time symmetry. Inertial sensor data were collected from various locations on the lower body to train hidden Markov models. The HMM-SM was evaluated to determine whether it corresponded to changes in gait as individuals deviated from their baseline, and whether it could provide a reliable measure of gait similarity. The HMM-SM showed consistent changes in accordance with stance-time symmetry in the following sensor configurations: pelvis, combined upper leg signals, and combined lower leg signals. Additionally, the HMM-SM demonstrated good reliability for the combined upper leg signals (ICC = 0.803) and lower leg signals (ICC = 0.795). These findings provide preliminary evidence that the HMM-SM could be useful in assessing changes in overall gait patterns. This could enable the development of compact, wearable systems for unsupervised gait assessment, without the requirement to pre-identify and measure a set of gait parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".