Assessing real-world gait with digital technology? Validation, insights and recommendations from the Mobilise-D consortium.
Accelerometer
Algorithms
Cadence
DMOs
Digital health
Real-world gait
SL
Validation
Walking
Wearable sensor
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 06 2023
14 06 2023
Historique:
received:
21
09
2022
accepted:
26
05
2023
medline:
16
6
2023
pubmed:
15
6
2023
entrez:
14
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) can be readily calculated from real-world data collected with wearable devices and ad-hoc algorithms, technical validation is still required. The aim of this paper is to comparatively assess and validate DMOs estimated using real-world gait data from six different cohorts, focusing on gait sequence detection, foot initial contact detection (ICD), cadence (CAD) and stride length (SL) estimates. Twenty healthy older adults, 20 people with Parkinson's disease, 20 with multiple sclerosis, 19 with proximal femoral fracture, 17 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 12 with congestive heart failure were monitored for 2.5 h in the real-world, using a single wearable device worn on the lower back. A reference system combining inertial modules with distance sensors and pressure insoles was used for comparison of DMOs from the single wearable device. We assessed and validated three algorithms for gait sequence detection, four for ICD, three for CAD and four for SL by concurrently comparing their performances (e.g., accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, absolute and relative errors). Additionally, the effects of walking bout (WB) speed and duration on algorithm performance were investigated. We identified two cohort-specific top performing algorithms for gait sequence detection and CAD, and a single best for ICD and SL. Best gait sequence detection algorithms showed good performances (sensitivity > 0.73, positive predictive values > 0.75, specificity > 0.95, accuracy > 0.94). ICD and CAD algorithms presented excellent results, with sensitivity > 0.79, positive predictive values > 0.89 and relative errors < 11% for ICD and < 8.5% for CAD. The best identified SL algorithm showed lower performances than other DMOs (absolute error < 0.21 m). Lower performances across all DMOs were found for the cohort with most severe gait impairments (proximal femoral fracture). Algorithms' performances were lower for short walking bouts; slower gait speeds (< 0.5 m/s) resulted in reduced performance of the CAD and SL algorithms. Overall, the identified algorithms enabled a robust estimation of key DMOs. Our findings showed that the choice of algorithm for estimation of gait sequence detection and CAD should be cohort-specific (e.g., slow walkers and with gait impairments). Short walking bout length and slow walking speed worsened algorithms' performances. Trial registration ISRCTN - 12246987.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) can be readily calculated from real-world data collected with wearable devices and ad-hoc algorithms, technical validation is still required. The aim of this paper is to comparatively assess and validate DMOs estimated using real-world gait data from six different cohorts, focusing on gait sequence detection, foot initial contact detection (ICD), cadence (CAD) and stride length (SL) estimates.
METHODS
Twenty healthy older adults, 20 people with Parkinson's disease, 20 with multiple sclerosis, 19 with proximal femoral fracture, 17 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 12 with congestive heart failure were monitored for 2.5 h in the real-world, using a single wearable device worn on the lower back. A reference system combining inertial modules with distance sensors and pressure insoles was used for comparison of DMOs from the single wearable device. We assessed and validated three algorithms for gait sequence detection, four for ICD, three for CAD and four for SL by concurrently comparing their performances (e.g., accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, absolute and relative errors). Additionally, the effects of walking bout (WB) speed and duration on algorithm performance were investigated.
RESULTS
We identified two cohort-specific top performing algorithms for gait sequence detection and CAD, and a single best for ICD and SL. Best gait sequence detection algorithms showed good performances (sensitivity > 0.73, positive predictive values > 0.75, specificity > 0.95, accuracy > 0.94). ICD and CAD algorithms presented excellent results, with sensitivity > 0.79, positive predictive values > 0.89 and relative errors < 11% for ICD and < 8.5% for CAD. The best identified SL algorithm showed lower performances than other DMOs (absolute error < 0.21 m). Lower performances across all DMOs were found for the cohort with most severe gait impairments (proximal femoral fracture). Algorithms' performances were lower for short walking bouts; slower gait speeds (< 0.5 m/s) resulted in reduced performance of the CAD and SL algorithms.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the identified algorithms enabled a robust estimation of key DMOs. Our findings showed that the choice of algorithm for estimation of gait sequence detection and CAD should be cohort-specific (e.g., slow walkers and with gait impairments). Short walking bout length and slow walking speed worsened algorithms' performances. Trial registration ISRCTN - 12246987.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37316858
doi: 10.1186/s12984-023-01198-5
pii: 10.1186/s12984-023-01198-5
pmc: PMC10265910
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN12246987']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
78Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Parkinsons Dis. 2021;11(2):715-724
pubmed: 33459664
Control Technol Appl. 2017 Aug;2017:847-852
pubmed: 30148285
BMJ Open. 2014 Dec 14;4(12):e006434
pubmed: 25500772
Neurology. 2014 Jan 28;82(4):308-16
pubmed: 24363137
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2021 Nov;2021:7020-7023
pubmed: 34892719
Trials. 2020 Jan 8;21(1):46
pubmed: 31915043
Gait Posture. 2013 Sep;38(4):940-4
pubmed: 23706507
Ann Biomed Eng. 2017 May;45(5):1266-1278
pubmed: 28108943
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Nov 11;11:152
pubmed: 25388296
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Sep 19;20(18):
pubmed: 32961799
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 20;10(4):e0123705
pubmed: 25894561
NPJ Parkinsons Dis. 2021 Mar 5;7(1):24
pubmed: 33674597
Digit Health. 2023 Feb 1;9:20552076221150745
pubmed: 36756644
Lancet Neurol. 2020 May;19(5):462-470
pubmed: 32059811
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Apr 03;11:48
pubmed: 24693881
Gait Posture. 2012 Jun;36(2):316-8
pubmed: 22465705
Front Aging Neurosci. 2022 Mar 22;14:808518
pubmed: 35391750
J Nutr Health Aging. 2009 Dec;13(10):881-9
pubmed: 19924348
Biomed Eng Online. 2018 May 9;17(1):58
pubmed: 29739456
Gait Posture. 2018 Oct;66:76-82
pubmed: 30170137
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Feb 4;16(1):24
pubmed: 30717753
J Biomech. 2019 Feb 14;84:274-277
pubmed: 30630626
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023 Apr 21;11:1143248
pubmed: 37214281
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023 Jun 14;20(1):78
pubmed: 37316858
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Apr 19;13:38
pubmed: 27093956
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Nov 14;20(22):
pubmed: 33202608
BMJ Open. 2021 Dec 2;11(12):e050785
pubmed: 34857567
Mhealth. 2022 Jan 20;8:9
pubmed: 35178440
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 20;16(8):e0256541
pubmed: 34415959
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2023 May 11;78(5):802-810
pubmed: 35029661
J Parkinsons Dis. 2021;11(s1):S35-S47
pubmed: 33523020
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Oct 20;20(20):
pubmed: 33092143
Front Neurol. 2017 Sep 04;8:457
pubmed: 28928711
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019 Jul;2019:1834-1837
pubmed: 31946254
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 26;14(12):e0227075
pubmed: 31877181
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;(3):CD001704
pubmed: 21412873
Gait Posture. 2015 Sep;42(3):310-6
pubmed: 26163348
Med Eng Phys. 2011 Nov;33(9):1064-71
pubmed: 21600828
J Biomech. 2021 Oct 11;127:110687
pubmed: 34455233
JAMA. 2011 Jan 5;305(1):50-8
pubmed: 21205966
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 Mar;24(3):658-668
pubmed: 31059461
J Parkinsons Dis. 2020;10(3):843-853
pubmed: 32417796
Hum Mov Sci. 2015 Oct;43:118-24
pubmed: 26256534
Lancet. 2016 Sep 17;388(10050):1170-82
pubmed: 27524393
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020 Jul;2020:4596-4599
pubmed: 33019017
Sensors (Basel). 2021 Dec 10;21(24):
pubmed: 34960353
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Jun 02;10:868928
pubmed: 35721859
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020 Jul;24(7):1869-1878
pubmed: 32086225
PLoS One. 2018 May 1;13(5):e0196463
pubmed: 29715279
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2016 May;20(3):838-847
pubmed: 25850097
Gait Posture. 2003 Oct;18(2):1-10
pubmed: 14654202
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:1955-1964
pubmed: 34506286
Lancet Neurol. 2016 Mar;15(3):249-58
pubmed: 26795874
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Oct 14;4(1):149
pubmed: 34650191
Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2019 Oct 18;6(8):693-699
pubmed: 31745480
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 18;14(11):e0224971
pubmed: 31738792
Int J Distrib Sens Netw. 2017 Apr;13(4):
pubmed: 29910697
Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 27;8(1):153
pubmed: 31248456
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 May 12;13(1):46
pubmed: 27175731
Digit Biomark. 2020 Nov 26;4(Suppl 1):13-27
pubmed: 33442578
Gait Posture. 2018 Jan;59:248-252
pubmed: 29100144