MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416223886 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.13.017

A PREOPERATIVE COMPARISON OF SENSOR-BASED FREE-LIVING AND IN-CLINIC VIDEO-BASED GAIT MEASURES IN PATIENTS AWAITING KNEE ARTHROPLASTY SURGERY

2025· article· en· W4416223886 on OpenAlexaff
Anne M. Dorrance, Annemarie F. Laudanski, K. Genge, Stephanie Civiero, Michael Dunbar, Glen Richardson, Jason M. Leighton, Janie L. Astephen Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaitKinematicsGait analysisOsteoarthritisPopulationAccelerometerCoronal planeKnee Joint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gait metrics have been used to predict knee osteoarthritis (OA) progression and classify OA severity, but require the use of sophisticated laboratory-based equipment1,2. Wearable sensors offer a solution to monitor free-living gait over extended periods of time, yet the relationship between sensor-based and video-based gait measures is not well understood. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the association of daily walking metrics captured by an accelerometer and knee kinematic gait outcomes measured using video-based motion capture in a population of people awaiting knee arthroplasty surgery. Patients with end-stage knee OA were recruited from participating surgeons’ knee arthroplasty waitlists. Gait outcomes were measured using an in-clinic video-based, markerless motion-capture system (Sony, Theia Markerless). Data from ten gait cycles for each participant were processed to calculate knee flexion and adduction angles, knee angular velocities, and gait speed (Visual3D, C-Motion). Free-living gait was measured using a single accelerometer, secured on the shank of the affected limb of each participant (Axivity). Acceleration data reflecting a continuous one-minute walking bout occurring in the middle of the free-living period were extracted for each participant for analysis. Raw acceleration peaks were used to identify foot contact to segment participant steps3. Processed acceleration data were used to align the axes of the sensor to the anatomical axes of the limb segment, and to compute linear shank velocities in the frontal plane and the thrust accelerations (associated with knee adduction moments) during early stance4,5,6. The mean video-based outcomes during stance phase for all participants were compared to the mean sensor-obtained measurements of peak stance acceleration and velocity, range in acceleration and velocity from initial contact to the peak during stance, and thrust acceleration using Pearson's correlation coefficients (r). Video-based and free-living sensor gait data were collected and compared from 21 knee arthroplasty patients awaiting surgery (13M/8F) with an average age and BMI of 69 years (±6) and 33 kg/m^2 (±8) (Table 1). A higher peak knee flexion angle during stance phase (video) was moderately correlated with a higher frontal plane acceleration range from initial contact to peak stance (sensor), a higher frontal plane velocity range from initial contact to peak stance (sensor), and a higher thrust acceleration (sensor). A higher gait speed (video) was moderately correlated with a higher frontal plane acceleration range from initial contact to peak stance (sensor). While the sensor and in-clinic measures were not strongly correlated, the sensor data presented an opportunity to define different, free-living gait outcomes, providing complementary insight into gait mechanics. A better understanding of patient functional variability may be gained, potentially relevant to arthroplasty patient care and decision-making. Gait varies between clinical and real-world settings, meaning the development of clinically relevant metrics to quantify free-living gait mechanics using simple technologies may generate more widespread translational uptake of gait considerations into clinical decision-making. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207