MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410217123 · doi:10.1101/2025.05.06.25326646

Validation of an instrumented shoe insole framework for analyzing spatiotemporal gait metrics in healthy and neurodegenerative populations

2025· preprint· en· W4410217123 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew P. Mavor, Alexandre Mir-Orefice, Victor C.H. Chan, Gauruv Bose, Heather MacLean, Tiago Mestre, David A. Grimes, Mark S. Freedman, Ryan B. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGait analysisComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many neurological conditions negatively affect a person’s walking quality, which is a vital aspect of their quality of life. Gait quality, through the collection of spatiotemporal variables, can also help infer disease status; however, in-clinic access to these metrics is limited or cannot be assessed frequently enough to proactively monitor disease progression (i.e., improvement, maintenance, worsening). To address these limitations, we developed a framework that analyzes spatiotemporal gait metrics using healthy and neurodegenerative walking data collected from instrumented shoe insoles. The Insole Framework (IF) identifies ambulatory activities using an artificial neural network, identifies gait events using logic, fuses the inertial measurement unit (IMU) data, standardizes the analysis to every ten seconds, and calculates spatiotemporal metrics categorized into core, pace, percentage, and asymmetry metrics. Activity classification algorithms had excellent accuracy and F1-score (≥ 93%). The spatiotemporal metrics obtained from the IF were validated against a gold standard motion capture system using ICCs, limits of agreement, and statistical testing. All core and pace metrics had good to excellent reliability and acceptable bias compared to the motion capture system, regardless of neurological function. Of the 19 spatiotemporal metrics assessed, system-independent statistical tests showed that similar population-level interpretations (i.e., one disagreement) and post-hoc differences (i.e., three disagreements) with similar levels of explained variance (absolute η 2 difference between systems across all tests was 0.046) would be found regardless of the system used. The IF was considered valid and can appropriately capture ambulatory activities and spatiotemporal gait metrics in healthy, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease populations. Author Summary Gait assessments are used by clinicians to infer the severity and progression of neurological diseases. These assessments aim to quantify gross walking quality (i.e., patient perception, visual observations, speed, and distance) rather than the spatiotemporal metrics (e.g., double support time, stride length, cadence, etc.) that differentiate people from controls, conditions, and severity levels. Although spatiotemporal metrics can be powerful digital biomarkers to assess disease severity and monitor progression, traditional motion capture methods are limited due to high costs, the need for specialized expertise, time-consuming analysis/operations and infrequent patient collections. To overcome these limitations, we propose a framework that uses instrumented shoe insoles (inertial measurement unit + pressure) to identify activities and analyze gait. With our framework, gait assessments can be done several times a month in free-living conditions instead of infrequent clinical gait assessments, reducing healthcare barriers and promoting objective decision-making. This work describes our activity recognition, gait detection, and fusion methods and demonstrates our framework’s ability to produce results comparable to a gold-standard motion capture system in participants with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and healthy individuals. Our Insole Framework is deemed valid due to high reliability, similar between-group interpretations across systems, and the activity recognition algorithm’s performance.

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)0.004
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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