SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Scoping Review of Machine Learning Techniques in Marker-Based Clinical Gait Analysis.

Bioengineering (Basel) · 2025-05-30

DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering12060591PMID: 40564408

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

The recent proliferation of novel machine learning techniques in quantitative marker-based 3D gait analysis (3DGA) has shown promise for improving interpretations of clinical gait analysis. The objective of this study was to characterize the state of the literature on using machine learning in the analysis of marker-based 3D gait analysis to provide clinical insights that may be used to improve clinical analysis and care.MethodsA scoping review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Search terms from eight relevant articles were identified by the authors and added to by experts in clinical gait analysis and machine learning. Inclusion was decided by the adjudication of three reviewers.ResultsThe review identified 4324 articles matching the search terms. Adjudication identified 105 relevant papers. The most commonly applied techniques were the following: support vector machines, neural networks (NNs), and logistic regression. The most common clinical conditions evaluated were cerebral palsy, Parkinson's disease, and post-stroke.ConclusionsML has been used broadly in the literature and recent advances in deep learning have been more successful in larger datasets while traditional techniques are robust in small datasets and can outperform NNs in accuracy and explainability. XAI techniques can improve model interpretability but have not been broadly used.

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.