Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41516667›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Outdoor Walking Classification Based on Inertial Measurement Unit and Foot Pressure Sensor Data.

Oussama Jlassi, Jill Emmerzaal, Gabriella Vinco, Frederic Garcia, Christophe Ley, Bernd Grimm, Philippe C Dixon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Oussama JlassiDepartment of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC H2W 1S4, Canada.ORCID 0009-0003-6894-4403
Jill EmmerzaalDepartment of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC H2W 1S4, Canada.
Gabriella VincoDepartment of Mathematics, University of Luxembourg, 4365 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0009-0003-1113-5218
Frederic GarciaDepartment of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, 1445 Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Christophe LeyDepartment of Mathematics, University of Luxembourg, 4365 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-2290-8437
Bernd GrimmDepartment of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, 1445 Luxembourg, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0003-4585-4643
Philippe C DixonDepartment of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC H2W 1S4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3581-7259

Funding

Fonds de recherche Québec 315603Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg 315603
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Navigating surfaces during walking can alter gait patterns. This study aims to develop tools for automatic walking condition classification using inertial measurement unit (IMU) and foot pressure sensors. We compared sensor modalities (IMUs on lower-limbs, IMUs on feet, IMUs on the pelvis, pressure insoles, and IMUs on the feet or pelvis combined with pressure insoles) and evaluated whether gait cycle segmentation improves performance compared to a sliding window. (2) Methods: Twenty participants performed flat, stairs up, stairs down, slope up, and slope down walking trials while fitted with IMUs and pressure insoles. Machine learning (ML; Extreme Gradient Boosting) and deep learning (DL; Convolutional Neural Network + Long Short-Term Memory) models were trained to classify these conditions. (3) Results: Overall, a DL model using lower-limb IMUs processed with gait segmentation performed the best (F1=0.89). Models trained with IMUs outperformed those trained on pressure insoles (p<0.01). Combining sensor modalities and gait segmentation improved performance for ML models (p<0.01). The best minimal model was a DL model trained on IMU pelvis + pressure insole data using sliding window segmentation (F1=0.83). (4) Conclusions: IMUs provide the most discriminative features for automatic walking condition classification. Combining sensor modalities may be helpful for some model architectures. DL models perform well without gait segmentation, making them independent of gait event identification algorithms.

Indexed as

FootWalkingClassification AlgorithmsDeep LearningGaitHumansMachine LearningMalePressuredeep learningdigital mobility outcomesgait analysisinertial measurement unitsmachine learningpressure insoleswalking condition classificationwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID41516667
PMCPMC12788207

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.