Validation of Novel Stride Length Model-Based Approaches to Estimate Distance Covered Based on Acceleration and Pressure Data During Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to walk is essential in daily life, making walking outcomes key measures in clinical practice. This study aims to develop and validate two novel stride length model-based approaches for total distance estimation using a smart insole. Eight participants wore a pair of smart insoles. For a period of six minutes, each participant walked back and forth on a predefined 20 m pathway, and the numbers of round trips and strides taken were counted. Two stride length estimation approaches based on the director coefficients of acceleration data (Approach 1) and dynamic time warping (Approach 2) using smart insoles were used. The median accuracies of the total distance using Approach 1 are 98.92% [1.24%] (ICC = 0.992) and 98.69% [2.44%] (ICC = 0.994) for the right and left sides, respectively. For Approach 2, the average accuracies are 98.95% [0.18%] (ICC = 0.996) for the right side and 99.03% [0.14%] (ICC = 0.991) for the left side. The Mann-Whitney U test shows no statistically significant difference between the actual distance and smart insole for the total distance covered. Furthermore, there is no statistically significant difference between Approach 1 and Approach 2 for stride length. Although the sample size was small, the estimated total distance using the novel model-based algorithms appears to be accurate in comparison to the actual total distance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".