Gait characteristics in people with Friedreich ataxia: daily life versus clinic measures

Gait assessments in a clinical setting may not accurately reflect mobility in everyday life. To better understand gait during daily life, we compared measures that discriminated Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) from healthy control (HC) subjects in prescribed clinic tests and free, daily-life monitoring. We...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in neurology Jg. 16; S. 1544453
Hauptverfasser: Casey, Hannah L., Shah, Vrutangkumar V., Muzyka, Daniel, McNames, James, El-Gohary, Mahmoud, Sowalsky, Kristen, Safarpour, Delaram, Carlson-Kuhta, Patricia, Rummey, Christian, Horak, Fay B., Gomez, Christopher M.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 17.03.2025
Schlagworte:
clinical trials
digital biomarker
free-living
Friedreich’s ataxia
gait
Neurology
wearable inertial sensors
Friedreich’s ataxia
clinical trials
wearable inertial sensors
gait
free-living
digital biomarker
ISSN:1664-2295, 1664-2295
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Gait assessments in a clinical setting may not accurately reflect mobility in everyday life. To better understand gait during daily life, we compared measures that discriminated Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) from healthy control (HC) subjects in prescribed clinic tests and free, daily-life monitoring. We recruited 9 people with FRDA (median age: 20, IQR [12, 48] years). A comparative healthy control (HC) subject cohort of 9 was sampled using propensity matching on age (median age: 18 [13, 22] years). Subjects wore 3 inertial sensors (one each foot and lower back) in the laboratory during a 2-min walk at a natural pace, followed by 7 days of daily life. For daily life analysis, a total of 99,216 strides across 1,008 h of recording were included. Mann-Whitney U test and area under the curve (AUC) compared gait differences between FRDA and HC when assessed in the laboratory and daily life. Pairwise Wilcoxon tests also compared if participants exhibited different metric values between the two environments. The FRDA group exhibited lower levels of daily activity. Measures that best discriminated gait characteristics of FRDA from HC differed between environments. Variation in elevation of the feet at midswing best discriminated in-clinic (Clinic AUC = 1, Home AUC = 0.69), whereas slow gait speed performed best in daily life (Home AUC = 1, Clinic AUC = 0.64). Of the 17 measures tested, 11 had an AUC > 0.8 in-clinic and 8 had an AUC >0.8 at home. Variability of swing time (Clinic AUC = 0.97, Home AUC = 0.94) and double-support time (Clinic AUC = 0.94, Home AUC = 0.94) were the most sensitive and specific for FRDA in both environments. Digital gait characteristics from inertial sensors are sensitive and specific for FRDA in both environments. However, different gait measures were more sensitive and specific during free-living versus prescribed gait, suggesting that in-clinic gait does not reflect daily life gait.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Reviewed by: Natalia Szejko, University of Calgary, Canada
Pedro José Tomaselli, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Edited by: Brett W. Fling, Colorado State University, United States
ISSN:1664-2295
1664-2295
DOI:10.3389/fneur.2025.1544453