ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Every Step Counts-How Can We Accurately Count Steps with Wearable Sensors During Activities of Daily Living in Individuals with Neurological Conditions?
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Feasibility, validation and application of digital tools for remote monitoring in neuromuscular diseases: the DT4RD protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Body placement of inertial measurement units differentially affects physical activity assessment accuracy in drug-naïve Parkinson's disease.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wearable sensors provide objective, continuous, and non-invasive quantification of physical activity, with step count serving as one of the most intuitive measures. However, significant gait alterations in individuals with neurological conditions limit the accuracy of step-counting algorithms trained on able-bodied individuals. Therefore, this study investigates the accuracy of step counting during activities of daily living (ADL) in a neurological population. Seven individuals with neurological conditions wore seven accelerometers while performing ADL for 30 min. Step events manually annotated from video served as ground truth. An optimal sensing and analysis configuration for machine learning algorithm development (sensor location, filter range, window length, and regressor type) was identified and compared to existing algorithms developed for able-bodied individuals. The most accurate configuration includes a waist-worn sensor, a 0.5-3 Hz bandpass filter, a 5 s window, and gradient boosting regression. The corresponding algorithm showed a significantly lower error rate compared to existing algorithms trained on able-bodied data. Notably, all algorithms undercounted steps. This study identified an optimal sensing and analysis configuration for machine learning-based step counting in a neurological population and highlights the limitations of applying able-bodied-trained algorithms. Future research should focus on developing accurate and robust step-counting algorithms tailored to individuals with neurological conditions.
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.