SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Using Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning to Automatically Detect Freezing of Gait during a FOG-Provoking Test.

Sensors (Basel) · 2020-08-10

DOI: 10.3390/s20164474PMID: 32785163

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Freezing of gait (FOG) is a debilitating motor phenomenon that is common among individuals with advanced Parkinson's disease. Objective and sensitive measures are needed to better quantify FOG. The present work addresses this need by leveraging wearable devices and machine-learning methods to develop and evaluate automated detection of FOG and quantification of its severity. Seventy-one subjects with FOG completed a FOG-provoking test while wearing three wearable sensors (lower back and each ankle). Subjects were videotaped before (OFF state) and after (ON state) they took their antiparkinsonian medications. Annotations of the videos provided the "ground-truth" for FOG detection. A leave-one-patient-out validation process with a training set of 57 subjects resulted in 84.1% sensitivity, 83.4% specificity, and 85.0% accuracy for FOG detection. Similar results were seen in an independent test set (data from 14 other subjects). Two derived outcomes, percent time frozen and number of FOG episodes, were associated with self-report of FOG. Bother derived-metrics were higher in the OFF state than in the ON state and in the most challenging level of the FOG-provoking test, compared to the least challenging level. These results suggest that this automated machine-learning approach can objectively assess FOG and that its outcomes are responsive to therapeutic interventions.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.