Detecting Freezing of Gait in Parkinson Disease Using Multiple Wearable Sensors Sets During Various Walking Tasks Relative to Medication Conditions (DetectFoG): Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Freezing of gait (FoG) is one of the most disabling symptoms of Parkinson disease (PD). Detecting and monitoring episodes of FoG are important in the medical follow-up of patients to assess disease progression and functional impact and to adjust treatment accordingly. Although several questionnaires exist, they lack objectivity. Using wearable sensors such as inertial measurement units (IMUs) to detect FoG episodes offers greater objectivity and accuracy. There is no consensus on the number and location of IMU, type of algorithm, and method of triggering and scoring the FoG episodes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the use of multiple wearable sensors sets to detect FoG in patients with PD during various walking tasks under different medication conditions. METHODS: This single-center, prospective cohort study (DetectFoG) will include 18 patients with PD. Patients will be fitted with 7 IMUs and will walk a freezing-provoking path under different tasks-"single task," "dual motor task," or "dual cognitive task"-and medical conditions corresponding to levodopa medication ("on" or "off"). Passages will be videotaped, and 2 movement disorder specialists will identify FoG episodes in the videos. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the most effective combination of wearable sensors for detecting FoG episodes will be studied. RESULTS: The study is currently in the data collection phase, having commenced recruitment in February 2024. Once all data have been gathered, the data analysis will commence. As of August 2024, 3 patients have been recruited. It is anticipated that the results will be published by the end of 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Detecting FoG episodes in various medical and clinical settings would provide a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon. Furthermore, it would enable reliable and objective monitoring of the progression of this symptom based on treatments and the natural course of the disease. This could serve as an objective tool for monitoring patients and assessing the severity and frequency of FoG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05822258; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05822258. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/58612.
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 | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".