MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405706181 · doi:10.3390/s24248211

Real-Time Freezing of Gait Prediction and Detection in Parkinson’s Disease

2024· article· en· W4405706181 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott Pardoel, Ayham AlAkhras, Ensieh Jafari, Jonathan Kofman, Edward D. Lemaire, Julie Nantel

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of WaterlooWeston Family Foundation
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryDecision treeGaitArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePostural instabilityMachine learningSensitivity (control systems)Parkinson's diseaseStatisticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineDiseaseMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freezing of gait (FOG) is a walking disturbance that can lead to postural instability, falling, and decreased mobility in people with Parkinson’s disease. This research used machine learning to predict and detect FOG episodes from plantar-pressure data and compared the performance of decision tree ensemble classifiers when trained on three different datasets. Dataset 1 (n = 11) was collected in a previous study. Dataset 2 (n = 10) included six new participants and four participants from Dataset 1 who were re-tested (approximately 2 years later), and Dataset 3 (n = 21) combined Datasets 1 and 2. The prediction model trained on Dataset 3 had a 2.28% higher sensitivity and 3.09% lower specificity compared to the models trained on Dataset 1. The model trained on Dataset 3 identified 86.84% of the total FOG episodes compared to 74.31% from the model trained on Dataset 1. Also, the model using Dataset 3 identified the FOG episodes 0.3 s earlier than the model developed with Dataset 1. The model trained using Dataset 3 showed improved performance in sensitivity, identification time, and FOG identification. The improvements using the expanded dataset (Dataset 3) in this study compared to the previous model reinforce the validity and generalizability of the original model. The model was able to predict and detect FOG well and is, therefore, ready to be implemented in a FOG prevention device.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensors→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→