4.6 Article

Sensor Verification and Analytical Validation of Algorithms to Measure Gait and Balance and Pronation/Supination in Healthy Volunteers

期刊

SENSORS
卷 22, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22166275

关键词

technical verification; analytical validation; accelerometer; gait and balance; walking; pronation; Parkinson's disease

资金

  1. Koneksa Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to verify the technical and analytical validity of Apple iPhone and ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers for measuring motor function in Parkinson's disease. The results suggest that these accelerometers are suitable for assessing the motor function of patients.
Numerous studies have sought to demonstrate the utility of digital measures of motor function in Parkinson's disease. Frameworks, such as V3, document digital measure development: technical verification, analytical and clinical validation. We present the results of a study to (1) technically verify accelerometers in an Apple iPhone 8 Plus and ActiGraph GT9X versus an oscillating table and (2) analytically validate software tasks for walking and pronation/supination on the iPhone plus passively detect walking measures with the ActiGraph in healthy volunteers versus human raters. In technical verification, 99.4% of iPhone and 91% of ActiGraph tests show good or excellent agreement versus the oscillating table as the gold standard. For the iPhone software task and algorithms, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) > 0.75 are achieved versus the human raters for measures when walking distance is >10 s and pronation/supination when the arm is rotated more than two times. Passively detected walking start and end time was accurate to approx. 1 s and walking measures were accurate to one unit, e.g., one step. The results suggest that the Apple iPhone and ActiGraph GT9X accelerometers are fit for purpose and that task and passively collected measures are sufficiently analytically valid to assess usability and clinical validity in Parkinson's patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据