Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 51 references

Classifying Simulated Gait Impairments using Privacy-preserving Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Mobile Phone Videos

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A mobile phone video system, using on-device pose estimation and XGBoost, classifies seven simulated gait patterns with 86.5% accuracy.

desk verdict New seven-class simulated-gait dataset is the real contribution; the 86.5% accuracy is an honest benchmark on that dataset, not clinical evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01056 v1 pith:KTHV3IKB submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CV

Lauhitya Reddy , Ketan Anand , Shoibolina Kaushik , Corey Rodrigo , J. Lucas McKay , Trisha M. Kesar , Hyeokhyen Kwon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords gaitclassificationprivacy-preservingAImobilephoneposeestimationMediaPipeXGBoostsimulateddatasetexplainableTSFRESH
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that ordinary mobile phone video, processed entirely on the phone, can serve as an objective gait-assessment tool. The authors built a seven-class dataset of 743 videos—normal gait plus six simulated impairments (circumduction, Trendelenburg, antalgic, crouch, Parkinsonian, vaulting)—recorded from frontal and sagittal views by trained physical therapy experts. Their pipeline extracts body keypoints with an on-device pose estimator, converts each second of motion into time-series features, and classifies them with XGBoost, reaching 86.5% accuracy when both views are combined. The claim matters because gait analysis today is either subjective observation or expensive marker-based motion capture, and a phone-based system that never uploads video could widen access to objective, privacy-preserving screening. The paper also argues that the features the model relies on—frequency, entropy, and lower-limb motion—match clinical understanding of gait.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a pipeline: MediaPipe/BlazePose runs on the phone and extracts 33 body keypoints with x, y, and z coordinates; poses are hip-centered, height-rescaled in frontal views, and cut into overlapping one-second windows. TSFRESH generates 783 time-series features per keypoint channel, and the Fresh algorithm, using Benjamini-Yekutieli false-discovery-rate control, keeps only statistically relevant feature types (31 for sagittal, 37 for frontal). SMOTE balances the class distribution, XGBoost classifies each window, and majority voting aggregates windows to video-level predictions under leave-one-subject-out nested cross-validation. Permutation importance then attributes the model's decisions to specific keypoint channels and feature families.

What would settle it

Run the same trained pipeline on videos of real patients with confirmed gait impairments under the same seven-class scheme; if accuracy falls to near chance or substantially below the simulated 86.5%, the paper's central claim that the system classifies gait impairments effectively is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a privacy-preserving pipeline—on-device MediaPipe pose estimation, TSFRESH feature extraction with Fresh selection, SMOTE balancing, XGBoost classification, and majority voting over one-second windows—can distinguish seven gait classes from mobile phone video, reaching 86.5% video-level accuracy (F1 0.864) under leave-one-subject-out cross-validation when frontal and sagittal views are combined. Sagittal views outperform frontal views overall (79.4% vs 71.4% accuracy for XGBoost), but circumduction is recognized better from the frontal view (F1 0.943 vs 0.714), and the combined model improves or matches the best single view for six of the seven classes. Permutation importance shows frequency-domain features, entropy measures, and lower-limb keypoints are the main drivers of classification.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that gait patterns simulated by 27 able-bodied physical therapy experts capture the movement, variability, severity, and confounding factors of real patients' pathological gaits, which the paper's Limitations section explicitly says the dataset lacks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A standard smartphone can serve as a gait-classification device without a motion-capture laboratory.
  • Combining frontal and sagittal views is better than either view alone, and the frontal view carries unique information for circumduction.
  • Frequency-domain and entropy features, along with lower-limb keypoints, are the most informative signals, matching clinical gait assessment priorities.
  • Because only pose data leave the device, the approach reduces privacy risks in home and community monitoring.
  • Simulated data from trained experts can support rapid prototyping of gait classifiers before clinical datasets are available.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If real-patient accuracy drops as the paper's limitations predict, fine-tuning on a modest set of clinical videos is the natural repair; the transfer gap, measured directly, would separate genuine signal from simulation artifact.
  • The mutually-exclusive class assumption will likely break on patients with overlapping impairments; a multi-label or severity-aware version is a direct testable extension.
  • The frontal-view depth inaccuracy suggests a cheap hardware fix—two phone cameras or a depth sensor—that could strengthen circumduction detection without sacrificing sagittal-view performance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents a mobile-phone-based pipeline for classifying seven gait classes (normal and six simulated impairments) from 743 videos of 27 able-bodied Doctor of Physical Therapy students/faculty. Pose keypoints are extracted with MediaPipe, preprocessed, segmented into 1-second windows with 50% overlap, summarized with TSFresh features, and classified with SVM, Random Forest, and XGBoost under a nested leave-one-subject-out cross-validation scheme with inner-fold hyperparameter tuning. The best model, XGBoost with combined frontal and sagittal views, achieves 86.5% video-level accuracy. The authors also report per-class performance and permutation feature importance. The paper claims that the results demonstrate the feasibility of privacy-preserving mobile phone gait classification, while acknowledging that clinical validation on real patient data is needed.

Significance. If the results hold, the study provides a potentially useful benchmark dataset and a carefully evaluated pipeline for markerless gait classification from ordinary mobile phone videos. The methodology is generally sound: nested LOSO CV prevents subject-level leakage, SMOTE and feature selection are confined to training folds (subject to clarification), and ten repeats with confidence intervals are reported. The feature importance analysis using permutation importance is a valuable addition, and the finding that sagittal views outperform frontal views is clinically plausible. However, the significance for clinical deployment is limited because all gait patterns were simulated by able-bodied experts rather than recorded from patients, and the paper does not provide a data availability statement, which is essential for a dataset contribution. The reported accuracy is a performance estimate on this simulated dataset, not a clinical accuracy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract's statement that 'mobile phone-based systems can effectively classify diverse gait patterns' overstates the evidence, which is limited to simulated gait patterns performed by 27 able-bodied DPT students/faculty, with one trial per class per subject. The paper's own Limitations section concedes that the simulated dataset 'lack[s] the variability and complexity of gait patterns that may be observed in clinical videos.' The authors should revise the abstract and the 'Clinical Applications' section to make clear that the 86.5% accuracy is on the simulated dataset and that any clinical applicability is a hypothesis to be tested, not a demonstrated result.
  2. [Study Design and Video Dataset / Data Availability] The paper introduces a novel dataset of 743 videos as a key contribution, but no data availability statement is provided. Without a clear plan for sharing the dataset (e.g., a public repository or availability upon request with IRB constraints), the benchmarking value promised in the Introduction cannot be realized. The authors should add a data availability statement and, if ethical restrictions prevent sharing, explain the restrictions explicitly.
  3. [Feature Importance Analysis] The manuscript does not state whether permutation feature importance was computed on the training, validation, or test set, nor how it was aggregated across cross-validation folds. If computed on the training data, the importance scores reflect model fit rather than generalization, and the claim in the Discussion that the identified features 'align with clinical understanding' would not be supported. The authors should specify the protocol and, ideally, compute permutation importance on the held-out test set for each outer fold and report the average.
  4. [Cross Validation and Evaluation Metrics] The description of nested cross-validation is ambiguous about when the Fresh feature selection and SMOTE are applied. The text states they were 'applied exclusively to the training set,' but in the outer loop, the inner validation folds are part of that training set. If Fresh and SMOTE are fit on the entire outer training set before the inner split, the validation folds influence feature selection and data augmentation, which can bias hyperparameter tuning. The authors should clarify whether these steps are refit inside each inner fold on the inner training subset only, and if not, the procedure should be corrected.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Throughout] Typos include 'postion' (Preprocessing), 'saggital' in multiple places (e.g., Table 3 caption and Keypoint Importance), 'classifcation' in the Abstract, and 'performace' in the Results section.
  2. [References] Reference 38 for the confidence interval is a Wikipedia article; replace it with a standard statistical reference for binomial proportion confidence intervals.
  3. [Table 4 and text] The text and Table 4 use 'V AU' with a space; use 'VAU' consistently.
  4. [Abstract and Keypoint Importance] The abstract states that 'lower limb keypoints proved most important for classification,' but the frontal-view analysis shows upper limb keypoints (left index, left pinky, left wrist, right shoulder) among the top five; qualify this statement.
  5. [Preprocessing / Privacy-preserving claim] The paper does not specify where the pose estimation was executed (on a mobile phone or on a desktop computer) during the experiments; since privacy-preservation is a central claim, clarify the actual deployment setting.
  6. [Figures 3 and 4] The heatmaps are not easily readable in low-resolution print; consider larger panels, higher DPI, or a different visualization to show the importance values.
  7. [Table 2] The authors do not report the final tuned hyperparameters for the models; including them in an appendix would improve reproducibility.
  8. [Clinical Applications] The 'Clinical Applications' section makes strong claims about remote monitoring without evidence; soften the language to be clearly speculative, consistent with the stated need for clinical validation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accuracy is an out-of-sample measurement on held-out subjects, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

This is an empirical classification paper rather than a derivation chain. The headline result, 86.5% accuracy for combined frontal and sagittal views, is measured on participants held out under a user-independent nested leave-one-subject-out cross-validation scheme. The paper explicitly confines feature selection (Fresh/TSFRESH) and SMOTE augmentation to the training set to prevent information leakage, so the evaluation is genuinely out-of-sample and is not a fitted constant relabeled as a prediction. No equation in the paper defines a target quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is subsequently reported as a predicted result. The few self-citations (e.g., ref. 33 by McKay and Kwon for classifiers 'previously used in gait research', and refs. 42/43 involving Kesar for gait signatures) are contextual and do not carry the central claim. The abstract and Limitations section also explicitly state that clinical validation with patient data remains necessary, narrowing the claim to simulated gait rather than disguising the dataset limitation. The permutation-importance analysis is an interpretation of the trained model, not an input-derived prediction, and any uncertainty about whether it was computed on training data would be an interpretability concern, not circularity. Overall, no load-bearing circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical machine-learning benchmark paper, so the ledger contains no invented physical entities and no closed-form derivation. The main axioms are domain assumptions about the validity of simulated gait and the accuracy of mobile pose estimation. The free parameters are standard ML hyperparameters and preprocessing choices that are fitted to the training data; the nested cross-validation procedure is designed to prevent these fitted choices from leaking into the test evaluation.

free parameters (3)
  • ML model hyperparameters = tuned via Optuna, exact values not reported
    SVM (C, gamma, kernel), random forest (n_estimators, max_depth, min_samples_split, min_samples_leaf, max_features), and XGBoost (max_depth, learning_rate, n_estimators, min_child_weight, subsample, colsample_bytree) are fitted to the inner validation folds; they affect the reported accuracy.
  • Analysis window length and overlap = 30 frames (1 second), 50% overlap
    Chosen following prior HAR work; the window size and overlap influence the number of windows per video and the frame-level feature statistics.
  • Number of selected features = 31 (sagittal), 37 (frontal)
    Selected by TSFresh's Fresh algorithm with Benjamini-Yekutieli control; thresholds determine which features enter the classifiers.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Simulated gait produced by trained able-bodied DPT students/faculty approximates clinically relevant pathological gait patterns sufficiently for training classifiers.
    The dataset is the sole training and evaluation signal; the paper's own Limitations section says the simulated data lack the variability, severity, and overlap of clinical gait, so the accuracy on simulated data may not transfer.
  • domain assumption MediaPipe pose keypoints, including the z-depth channel, are accurate enough on frontal and sagittal phone videos to support the classification.
    The entire pipeline depends on MediaPipe keypoint positions; the authors themselves note the mobile model has higher keypoint error than cloud-based models, especially for depth, which they use to explain lower frontal-view performance.
  • standard math TSFRESH feature extraction plus Benjamini-Yekutieli selection yields features that are informative for gait classification and not merely noise.
    The feature-selection step is a standard statistical control procedure, but the paper does not independently validate the selected features beyond the classification accuracy.
  • domain assumption SMOTE-generated synthetic samples preserve the class-conditional distribution of the feature space.
    SMOTE is applied to training folds only, but if synthetic samples are unrealistic, the classifier may be biased toward the majority class; this is not separately validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classifying Simulated Gait Impairments using Privacy-preserving Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Mobile Phone Videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTHV3IKB

@misc{pith2026241201056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classifying Simulated Gait Impairments using Privacy-preserving Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Mobile Phone Videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTHV3IKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01056}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate diagnosis of gait impairments is often hindered by subjective or costly assessment methods, with current solutions requiring either expensive multi-camera equipment or relying on subjective clinical observation. There is a critical need for accessible, objective tools that can aid in gait assessment while preserving patient privacy. In this work, we present a mobile phone-based, privacy-preserving artificial intelligence (AI) system for classifying gait impairments and introduce a novel dataset of 743 videos capturing seven distinct gait patterns. The dataset consists of frontal and sagittal views of trained subjects simulating normal gait and six types of pathological gait (circumduction, Trendelenburg, antalgic, crouch, Parkinsonian, and vaulting), recorded using standard mobile phone cameras. Our system achieved 86.5% accuracy using combined frontal and sagittal views, with sagittal views generally outperforming frontal views except for specific gait patterns like Circumduction. Model feature importance analysis revealed that frequency-domain features and entropy measures were critical for classifcation performance, specifically lower limb keypoints proved most important for classification, aligning with clinical understanding of gait assessment. These findings demonstrate that mobile phone-based systems can effectively classify diverse gait patterns while preserving privacy through on-device processing. The high accuracy achieved using simulated gait data suggests their potential for rapid prototyping of gait analysis systems, though clinical validation with patient data remains necessary. This work represents a significant step toward accessible, objective gait assessment tools for clinical, community, and tele-rehabilitation settings

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01056 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The demographics of our trained able bodied subjects, setup of our data collection, and number of simulated gait types. Privacy-preserving video-based gait analysis Overall pipeline Our analysis pipeline ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall video-based gait analysis pipeline and evaluation approach. December 3, 2024 5/21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mathematical function Feature importance analysis for (A) frontal and (B) sagittal view when classifying seven gait types using XGBoost. The X-axis shows the keypoint and channel (x, y or z), and the Y-axis shows the feature type. Darker color implies higher feature importance in the classification. December 3, 2024 11/21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Anatomical keypoint importance analysis in (A) frontal view and (B) sagittal view for classifying seven gait types using XGBoost. mentioned ’fft coefficient’. For definitions and the full list of saggital view feature types see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Association Between Various Brain Pathologies and Gait Disturbance

    Wennberg AMV, Savica R, Mielke MM. Association Between Various Brain Pathologies and Gait Disturbance. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2017;43(3-4):128–143. doi:10.1159/000456541. December 3, 2024 17/21

    work page doi:10.1159/000456541 2017

  2. [2]

    Procedures for gait analysis

    Harris GF, Wertsch JJ. Procedures for gait analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 1994;75(2):216–225. doi:10.1016/0003-9993(94)90399-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-9993(94)90399-9 1994

  3. [3]

    Gait analysis in the therapeutic environment

    Coutts F. Gait analysis in the therapeutic environment. Manual Therapy. 1999;4(1):2–10. doi:10.1016/S1356-689X(99)80003-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s1356-689x(99)80003-4 1999

  4. [4]

    Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function

    Jacquelin Perry JMB. Gait Analysis: Normal and Pathological Function. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine. 2010;9(2):353

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Reliability of observational kinematic gait analysis

    Krebs DE, Edelstein JE, Fishman S. Reliability of observational kinematic gait analysis. Physical Therapy. 1985;65(7):1027–1033. doi:10.1093/ptj/65.7.1027

    doi:10.1093/ptj/65.7.1027 1985

  6. [6]

    Reliability of videotaped observational gait analysis in patients with orthopedic impairments

    Brunnekreef JJ, van Uden CJ, van Moorsel S, Kooloos JG. Reliability of videotaped observational gait analysis in patients with orthopedic impairments. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2005;6(1):17. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-17

    doi:10.1186/1471-2474-6-17 2005

  7. [7]

    The Effect of Preoperative Gait Analysis on Orthopaedic Decision Making

    Kay RM, Dennis S, Rethlefsen S, Reynolds RAK, Skaggs DL, Tolo VT. The Effect of Preoperative Gait Analysis on Orthopaedic Decision Making. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ®. 2000;372:217

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    The impact of Three-Dimensional Gait Analysis in adults with pathological gait on management recommendations

    McGrath M, Wood J, Walsh J, Window P. The impact of Three-Dimensional Gait Analysis in adults with pathological gait on management recommendations. Gait & Posture. 2023;105:75–80. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2023.06.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2023.06.014 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Clinical-oriented Three-dimensional Gait Analysis Method for Evaluating Gait Disorder

    Mukaino M, Ohtsuka K, Tanikawa H, Matsuda F, Yamada J, Itoh N, et al. Clinical-oriented Three-dimensional Gait Analysis Method for Evaluating Gait Disorder. Journal of Visualized Experiments : JoVE. 2018;133:57063. doi:10.3791/57063

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Present and future of gait assessment in clinical practice: Towards the application of novel trends and technologies

    Hulleck AA, Menoth Mohan D, Abdallah N, El Rich M, Khalaf K. Present and future of gait assessment in clinical practice: Towards the application of novel trends and technologies. Frontiers in Medical Technology. 2022;4. doi:10.3389/fmedt.2022.901331

    2022

  3. [11]

    Quantifying normal and parkinsonian gait features from home movies: Practical application of a deep learning–based 2D pose estimator

    Sato K, Nagashima Y, Mano T, Iwata A, Toda T. Quantifying normal and parkinsonian gait features from home movies: Practical application of a deep learning–based 2D pose estimator. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(11):e0223549. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223549

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Two-dimensional video-based analysis of human gait using pose estimation

    Stenum J, Rossi C, Roemmich RT. Two-dimensional video-based analysis of human gait using pose estimation. PLoS Computational Biology. 2021;17(4):e1008935. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008935

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    BlazePose: On-device Real-time Body Pose tracking; 2020

    Bazarevsky V, Grishchenko I, Raveendran K, Zhu T, Zhang F, Grundmann M. BlazePose: On-device Real-time Body Pose tracking; 2020. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10204

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    OpenPose: Realtime Multi-Person 2D Pose Estimation using Part Affinity Fields; 2019

    Cao Z, Hidalgo G, Simon T, Wei SE, Sheikh Y. OpenPose: Realtime Multi-Person 2D Pose Estimation using Part Affinity Fields; 2019. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.08008

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Clinical gait analysis using video-based pose estimation: Multiple perspectives, clinical populations, and measuring change

    Stenum J, Hsu MM, Pantelyat AY, Roemmich RT. Clinical gait analysis using video-based pose estimation: Multiple perspectives, clinical populations, and measuring change. PLOS Digital Health. 2024;3(3):e0000467. doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000467. December 3, 2024 18/21

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Validation of portable in-clinic video-based gait analysis for prosthesis users

    Cimorelli A, Patel A, Karakostas T, Cotton RJ. Validation of portable in-clinic video-based gait analysis for prosthesis users. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):3840. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-53217-7

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Deep neural networks enable quantitative movement analysis using single-camera videos

    Kidzi´ nski L, Yang B, Hicks JL, Rajagopal A, Delp SL, Schwartz MH. Deep neural networks enable quantitative movement analysis using single-camera videos. Nature Communications. 2020;11(1):4054. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17807-z

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Automatic labeling of Parkinson’s Disease gait videos with weak supervision

    Gholami M, Ward R, Mahal R, Mirian M, Yen K, Park KW, et al. Automatic labeling of Parkinson’s Disease gait videos with weak supervision. Medical Image Analysis. 2023;89:102871. doi:10.1016/j.media.2023.102871

    2023

  11. [19]

    https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach

    Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024; 2024. https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach

    2024

  12. [20]

    MediaPipe: A Framework for Building Perception Pipelines; 2019

    Lugaresi C, Tang J, Nash H, McClanahan C, Uboweja E, Hays M, et al.. MediaPipe: A Framework for Building Perception Pipelines; 2019. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08172

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A tutorial on human activity recognition using body-worn inertial sensors

    Bulling A, Blanke U, Schiele B. A tutorial on human activity recognition using body-worn inertial sensors. ACM Comput Surv. 2014;46(3):33:1–33:33. doi:10.1145/2499621

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure

    Altmann A, Tolo¸ si L, Sander O, Lengauer T. Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(10):1340–1347. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Time Series FeatuRe Extraction on basis of Scalable Hypothesis tests (tsfresh – A Python package)

    Christ M, Braun N, Neuffer J, Kempa-Liehr A W. Time Series FeatuRe Extraction on basis of Scalable Hypothesis tests (tsfresh – A Python package). Neurocomputing. 2018;307:72–77. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2018.03.067

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    On the Algorithmic Implementation of Multiclass Kernel-based Vector Machines

    Crammer K, Singer Y. On the Algorithmic Implementation of Multiclass Kernel-based Vector Machines. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2001;2(Dec):265–292

    2001

  17. [25]

    Random Forests

    Breiman L. Random Forests. Machine Learning. 2001;45(1):5–32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System

    Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. KDD ’16. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2016. p. 785–794. Available from: https://dl.a...

    2016

  19. [27]

    On preserving statistical characteristics of accelerometry data using their empirical cumulative distribution

    Hammerla NY, Kirkham R, Andras P, Ploetz T. On preserving statistical characteristics of accelerometry data using their empirical cumulative distribution. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Wearable Computers. ISWC ’13. New York, NY, USA: Association for Co...

    2013

  20. [28]

    Distributed and parallel time series feature extraction for industrial big data applications; 2017

    Christ M, Kempa-Liehr A W, Feindt M. Distributed and parallel time series feature extraction for industrial big data applications; 2017. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.07717

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency

    Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics. 2001;29(4):1165–1188. doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998. December 3, 2024 19/21

    2001

  22. [30]

    Editorial: special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets

    Chawla NV, Japkowicz N, Kotcz A. Editorial: special issue on learning from imbalanced data sets. SIGKDD Explor Newsl. 2004;6(1):1–6. doi:10.1145/1007730.1007733

    2004

  23. [31]

    SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique

    Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP. SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 2002;16:321–357. doi:10.1613/jair.953

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    XGBoost based machine learning approach to predict the risk of fall in older adults using gait outcomes

    Noh B, Youm C, Goh E, Lee M, Park H, Jeon H, et al. XGBoost based machine learning approach to predict the risk of fall in older adults using gait outcomes. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):12183. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-91797-w

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Classifying Tremor Dominant and Postural Instability and Gait Difficulty Subtypes of Parkinson’s Disease from Full-Body Kinematics

    Gong NJ, Clifford GD, Esper CD, Factor SA, McKay JL, Kwon H. Classifying Tremor Dominant and Postural Instability and Gait Difficulty Subtypes of Parkinson’s Disease from Full-Body Kinematics. Sensors. 2023;23(19):8330. doi:10.3390/s23198330

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Wearable Sensor-Based Gait Analysis to Identify Patients with Osteopenia and Sarcopenia in Daily Life

    Kim JK, Bae MN, Lee K, Kim JC, Hong SG. Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Wearable Sensor-Based Gait Analysis to Identify Patients with Osteopenia and Sarcopenia in Daily Life. Biosensors. 2022;12(3):167. doi:10.3390/bios12030167

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Nested cross-validation when selecting classifiers is overzealous for most practical applications

    Wainer J, Cawley G. Nested cross-validation when selecting classifiers is overzealous for most practical applications. Expert Systems with Applications. 2021;182:115222. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115222

    2021

  28. [36]

    Consensus features nested cross-validation

    Parvandeh S, Yeh HW, Paulus MP, McKinney BA. Consensus features nested cross-validation. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England). 2020;36(10):3093–3098. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa046

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework

    Akiba T, Sano S, Yanase T, Ohta T, Koyama M. Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. KDD ’19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; ...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomial_proportion_ confidence_interval&oldid=1223672356

    Binomial proportion confidence interval; 2024. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomial_proportion_ confidence_interval&oldid=1223672356

    2024

  31. [39]

    A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms

    Bent´ ejac C, Cs¨ org˝ o A, Mart ´ ınez-Mu˜ noz G. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2021;54(3):1937–1967. doi:10.1007/s10462-020-09896-5

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Pictorial Structures for Object Recognition

    Felzenszwalb PF, Huttenlocher DP. Pictorial Structures for Object Recognition. International Journal of Computer Vision. 2005;61(1):55–79. doi:10.1023/B:VISI.0000042934.15159.49

    2005

  33. [41]

    DeepPose: Human Pose Estimation via Deep Neural Networks

    Toshev A, Szegedy C. DeepPose: Human Pose Estimation via Deep Neural Networks. In: 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2014. p. 1653–1660. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6909610

    2014

  34. [42]

    Discovering individual-specific gait signatures from data-driven models of neuromechanical dynamics

    Winner TS, Rosenberg MC, Jain K, Kesar TM, Ting LH, Berman GJ. Discovering individual-specific gait signatures from data-driven models of neuromechanical dynamics. PLOS Computational Biology. 2023;19(10):e1011556. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011556. December 3, 2024 20/21

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Gait signature changes with walking speed are similar among able-bodied young adults despite persistent individual-specific differences; 2024

    Winner TS, Rosenberg MC, Berman GJ, Kesar TM, Ting LH. Gait signature changes with walking speed are similar among able-bodied young adults despite persistent individual-specific differences; 2024. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.01.591976v1

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    New Perspectives in Human Movement Variability

    Lockhart T, Stergiou N. New Perspectives in Human Movement Variability. Annals of Biomedical Engineering. 2013;41(8):1593–1594. doi:10.1007/s10439-013-0852-0

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: is there a connection? Human Movement Science

    Stergiou N, Decker LM. Human movement variability, nonlinear dynamics, and pathology: is there a connection? Human Movement Science. 2011;30(5):869–888. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2011.06.002

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    Frontal plane compensatory strategies associated with self-selected walking speed in individuals post-stroke

    Stanhope V A, Knarr BA, Reisman DS, Higginson JS. Frontal plane compensatory strategies associated with self-selected walking speed in individuals post-stroke. Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 2014;29(5):518–522. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.03.013

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    Influence of systematic increases in treadmill walking speed on gait kinematics after stroke

    Tyrell CM, Roos MA, Rudolph KS, Reisman DS. Influence of systematic increases in treadmill walking speed on gait kinematics after stroke. Physical Therapy. 2011;91(3):392–403. doi:10.2522/ptj.20090425

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    The how and why of arm swing during human walking

    Meyns P, Bruijn SM, Duysens J. The how and why of arm swing during human walking. Gait & Posture. 2013;38(4):555–562. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.02.006

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Deep Convolutional and LSTM Recurrent Neural Networks for Multimodal Wearable Activity Recognition

    Ord´ o˜ nez FJ, Roggen D. Deep Convolutional and LSTM Recurrent Neural Networks for Multimodal Wearable Activity Recognition. Sensors. 2016;16(1):115. doi:10.3390/s16010115

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Deep ConvLSTM with self-attention for human activity decoding using wearables; 2020

    Singh SP, Lay-Ekuakille A, Gangwar D, Sharma MK, Gupta S. Deep ConvLSTM with self-attention for human activity decoding using wearables; 2020. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00698

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    ViTPose: Simple Vision Transformer Baselines for Human Pose Estimation; 2022

    Xu Y, Zhang J, Zhang Q, Tao D. ViTPose: Simple Vision Transformer Baselines for Human Pose Estimation; 2022. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.12484. December 3, 2024 21/21

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.