Assessment of Gait Pattern Changes in Lower Limb Amputees Using Inertial Sensor Signals: An Alternative to Gait Parameter Measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective gait monitoring and rehabilitation are essential for improving the quality of life in individuals with disabilities. Inertial sensors have the potential to enable long-term gait monitoring and assessment beyond the clinical setting. However, developing minimally intrusive systems that accommodate a wide range of gait deviations remains challenging. This study investigated an alternative to traditional approaches of using gait parameters for gait assessment, to evaluate whether changes in the overall gait patterns of lower-limb prosthetic users could be assessed by directly analyzing gyroscope and accelerometer data from inertial sensors. Eleven lower-limb prosthetic users completed walk trials with a biofeedback system designed to perturb gait patterns, while an additional twelve completed a gait training session with a physiotherapist. Inertial sensors were affixed at various locations along the lower body to collect gyroscope and accelerometer data. Three algorithms were evaluated: a hidden Markov model-based similarity measure (HMM-SM), self-organizing maps, and dynamic time warping. Statistical analyses demonstrated that self-organizing maps and dynamic time warping effectively assessed changes in gait patterns under a variety of gait perturbation strategies, with sensors located on the upper legs and lower legs significantly outperforming the pelvis location overall. The findings suggest the potential for wearable and adaptable gait monitoring systems capable of assessing changes in gait patterns. These systems could enable precise gait monitoring and real-time therapeutic intervention in real-world settings, offering a promising tool for long-term rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".