SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The advantages of artificial intelligence-based gait assessment in detecting, predicting, and managing Parkinson's disease.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2023-07-12

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2023.1191378PMID: 37502426

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundParkinson's disease is a neurological disorder that can cause gait disturbance, leading to mobility issues and falls. Early diagnosis and prediction of freeze episodes are essential for mitigating symptoms and monitoring the disease.ObjectiveThis review aims to evaluate the use of artificial intelligence (AI)-based gait evaluation in diagnosing and managing Parkinson's disease, and to explore the potential benefits of this technology for clinical decision-making and treatment support.MethodsA thorough review of published literature was conducted to identify studies, articles, and research related to AI-based gait evaluation in Parkinson's disease.ResultsAI-based gait evaluation has shown promise in preventing freeze episodes, improving diagnosis, and increasing motor independence in patients with Parkinson's disease. Its advantages include higher diagnostic accuracy, continuous monitoring, and personalized therapeutic interventions.ConclusionAI-based gait evaluation systems hold great promise for managing Parkinson's disease and improving patient outcomes. They offer the potential to transform clinical decision-making and inform personalized therapies, but further research is needed to determine their effectiveness and refine their use.

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.