Machine Learning Approach for Frailty Detection in Long-Term Care Using Accelerometer-Measured Gait and Daily Physical Activity: Model Development and Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty affects over 50% of older adults in long-term care (LTC), and early detection is critical due to its potential reversibility. Wearable sensors enable continuous monitoring of gait and physical activity, and machine learning has shown promise in detecting frailty among community-dwelling older adults. However, its applicability in LTC remains underexplored. Furthermore, dynamic gait outcomes (eg, gait stability and symmetry) may offer more sensitive frailty indicators than traditional measures like gait speed, yet their potential remains largely untapped. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether frailty in LTC facilities could be effectively identified using machine learning models trained on gait and daily physical activity data derived from a single accelerometer. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional secondary analysis of baseline data from a 2-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Of the 164 individuals initially enrolled, 51 participants (age: mean 85.0, SD 9.0 years; female: n=24, 47.1%) met the inclusion criteria of completing all assessments required for this study and were included in the final analysis. Frailty status was assessed using the fatigue, resistance, ambulation, incontinence, loss of weight, nutritional approach, and help with dressing (FRAIL-NH) scale. Participants completed a 5-meter walking task while wearing a 3D accelerometer. Following this task, the accelerometer was used to record daily physical activity over approximately 1 week. A total of 34 dynamic and spatial-temporal gait outcomes, 3 physical activity variables, and 6 demographic characteristics were extracted. Five conventional machine learning models were trained to classify frailty status using a leave-one-out cross-validation approach. Model performance was evaluated based on accuracy and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. To enhance model interpretability, explainable artificial intelligence techniques were used to identify the most influential predictive outcomes. RESULTS: The extreme gradient boosting model demonstrated the optimal performance with an accuracy of 86.3% and an area under the curve of 0.92. Explainable artificial intelligence analysis revealed that older adults with frailty exhibited more variable, complex, and asymmetric gait patterns, which were characterized by higher stride length variability, increased sample entropy, and a higher gait symmetry score. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that dynamic gait outcomes may serve as more sensitive indicators of frailty than spatial-temporal gait outcomes (eg, gait speed) in LTC settings, offering valuable insights for enhancing frailty detection and management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".