ArticleFrontiers in aging2026
Comparative evaluation of deep learning models for three-class frailty assessment using gait metrics.
Article in Frontiers in aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Frailty assessment in older adults typically relies on subjective clinical tools that are time-consuming and require trained personnel, limiting their use in routine or large-scale screening. Wearable sensor-based gait analysis offers a promising objective alternative; however, comprehensive evaluations of deep learning models for multi-class frailty classification using structured gait metrics remain limited. Methods: This study evaluates multiple deep learning architectures for three-class frailty classification using structured gait features derived from a single wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU). Four architectures (Transformer, ShapeFormer, InceptionTime, and LSTM-CNN) were evaluated using the publicly available GSTRIDE dataset, comprising 163 older adults (non-frail: Results: The four architectures yielded comparable mean accuracy under a unified protocol (ShapeFormer 73.1% ± 10.6%, Transformer 72.6% ± 6.0%, InceptionTime 70.5% ± 9.5%, LSTM-CNN 65.9% ± 9.8%). A Friedman omnibus test on the per-fold scores did not reject the null of equal performance (borderline on accuracy and macro-F1 ( Conclusion: Multi-class frailty classification using structured gait metrics from a single wearable sensor is feasible, though performance varies across models and frailty classes. Model stability and sensitivity to specific classes represent important trade-offs. Significance: These findings support the development of scalable, objective approaches to frailty assessment and underscore the importance of selecting models based on clinical priorities.
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.