SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Deep learning for freezing of gait assessment using inertial measurement units: a multicentre validation study.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2026-06-02

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-026-01407-7PMID: 42230618

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

Video annotation is the gold standard for assessing Freezing of Gait (FOG) in Parkinsonian disorders, but it is time-consuming. Deep learning (DL)-based assessment of FOG using inertial measurement units ameliorates this problem but poses challenges. Particularly, the large heterogeneity between patients and assessment methods potentially affects detection performance between independent cohorts. To evaluate heterogeneity effects, we developed a DL model on a local cohort (85 participants; 2043 trials) and validated it across six external cohorts (256 participants; 1058 trials). Model-expert agreement on the percentage-of-time-frozen was strong locally (ICC = 0.886 [0.79, 0.90]) but reduced in external cohorts (ICC = 0.562 ± 0.141). Fine-tuning the DL model with just 50 min of external cohort data improved the ICC to 0.732 ± 0.138, approaching the lower boundary of the inter-rater agreement between two clinical raters using video annotation (ICC = 0.73-0.99). Therefore, while unified standards are still being developed, we propose a human-in-the-loop workflow as an effective intermediary and present a proof-of-concept web-based platform for fine-tuning and expert review ( aidfog.be ).

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.