ArticleScientific reports2024
In-Clinic and Natural Gait Observations master protocol (I-CAN-GO) to validate gait using a lumbar accelerometer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lumbar Acceleration Gait Estimation: "Step-by-Step" Algorithm Updates and Improvements.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Master protocols in vocal biomarker development to reduce variability and advance clinical precision: a narrative review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional measurements of gait are typically performed in clinical or laboratory settings where functional assessments are used to collect episodic data, which may not reflect naturalistic gait and activity patterns. The emergence of digital health technologies has enabled reliable and continuous representation of gait and activity in free-living environments. To provide further evidence for naturalistic gait characterization, we designed a master protocol to validate and evaluate the performance of a method for measuring gait derived from a single lumbar-worn accelerometer with respect to reference methods. This evaluation included distinguishing between participants' self-perceived different gait speed levels, and effects of different floor surfaces such as carpet and tile on walking performance, and performance under different bouts, speed, and duration of walking during a wide range of simulated daily activities. Using data from 20 healthy adult participants, we found different self-paced walking speeds and floor surface effects can be accurately characterized. Furthermore, we showed accurate representation of gait and activity during simulated daily living activities and longer bouts of outside walking. Participants in general found that the devices were comfortable. These results extend our previous validation of the method to more naturalistic setting and increases confidence of implementation at-home.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.