Revisiting sources of variability in gait analysis

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Gait & posture Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2024.11.005
Emily Leary , Jinpu Li , Jamie Hall , Trent Guess
{"title":"Revisiting sources of variability in gait analysis","authors":"Emily Leary ,&nbsp;Jinpu Li ,&nbsp;Jamie Hall ,&nbsp;Trent Guess","doi":"10.1016/j.gaitpost.2024.11.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Gait analyses in clinical populations must be considered differently, as variation in measurements may be related to the clinical condition and not just factors of interest. However, measurements taken from gait also have natural variability and this variability is further compounded when multiple factors may be of clinical interest.</div></div><div><h3>Research question</h3><div>Do current methods properly assign and quantify the amount of variability in gait data?</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Simulated data were utilized to identify subject and therapist effects using multiple gait trials; data were simulated with and without multiple sessions with therapists. Five different statistical designs were considered that allow within-subject, within-therapist, and between-therapist errors. These are (1) a series of nested models, (2) a single model with interaction effects and nested structure, (3) cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects, (4) cross-sectional ANOVA with random effects, and (5) nested ANOVA. All modeling considered different therapists, trials, and subjects, and considered models were identified from gait literature. Ratios between estimated variances and the overall statistical errors were calculated; ratios were averaged and considered correctly identified when the estimated variance or variance component was greater than the random errors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The series of nested models identified therapist and session effects for all simulated outcomes but failed to account for subject and interaction effects. Estimates from the single model with interaction effects and nested structure exhibited a broader range of averaged ratios. The cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects accurately identified the sources of variability and can better quantify the source of variation, compared to all other considered models.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>Accurately identifying and assigning sources of variability is imperative to accurately interpret gait which may influence or change clinical interpretation or understanding. The appropriate statistical design allows one to partition variation to accomplish this purpose.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12496,"journal":{"name":"Gait & posture","volume":"117 ","pages":"Pages 100-108"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gait & posture","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636224006751","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Gait analyses in clinical populations must be considered differently, as variation in measurements may be related to the clinical condition and not just factors of interest. However, measurements taken from gait also have natural variability and this variability is further compounded when multiple factors may be of clinical interest.

Research question

Do current methods properly assign and quantify the amount of variability in gait data?

Methods

Simulated data were utilized to identify subject and therapist effects using multiple gait trials; data were simulated with and without multiple sessions with therapists. Five different statistical designs were considered that allow within-subject, within-therapist, and between-therapist errors. These are (1) a series of nested models, (2) a single model with interaction effects and nested structure, (3) cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects, (4) cross-sectional ANOVA with random effects, and (5) nested ANOVA. All modeling considered different therapists, trials, and subjects, and considered models were identified from gait literature. Ratios between estimated variances and the overall statistical errors were calculated; ratios were averaged and considered correctly identified when the estimated variance or variance component was greater than the random errors.

Results

The series of nested models identified therapist and session effects for all simulated outcomes but failed to account for subject and interaction effects. Estimates from the single model with interaction effects and nested structure exhibited a broader range of averaged ratios. The cross-sectional ANOVA with fixed effects accurately identified the sources of variability and can better quantify the source of variation, compared to all other considered models.

Significance

Accurately identifying and assigning sources of variability is imperative to accurately interpret gait which may influence or change clinical interpretation or understanding. The appropriate statistical design allows one to partition variation to accomplish this purpose.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视步态分析中的变异性来源。
背景:临床人群的步态分析必须考虑不同,因为测量的变化可能与临床状况有关,而不仅仅是感兴趣的因素。然而,步态测量也有自然的可变性,当多种因素可能引起临床兴趣时,这种可变性会进一步复杂化。研究问题:当前的方法是否正确分配和量化步态数据的可变性量?方法:通过多次步态试验,利用模拟数据来确定受试者和治疗师的效果;数据在有和没有与治疗师进行多次治疗的情况下进行模拟。考虑了五种不同的统计设计,允许受试者内部、治疗师内部和治疗师之间的错误。这些是(1)一系列嵌套模型,(2)具有相互作用效应和嵌套结构的单一模型,(3)固定效应的横截面方差分析,(4)随机效应的横截面方差分析,以及(5)嵌套方差分析。所有的建模都考虑了不同的治疗师、试验和受试者,并从步态文献中确定了考虑的模型。计算估计方差与总体统计误差之间的比值;当估计的方差或方差成分大于随机误差时,比率被平均并认为是正确识别的。结果:一系列嵌套模型确定了治疗师和会话对所有模拟结果的影响,但未能解释受试者和相互作用的影响。具有相互作用效应和嵌套结构的单一模型的估计显示出更大的平均比率范围。与所有其他考虑的模型相比,具有固定效应的横截面方差分析准确地识别了变异的来源,并且可以更好地量化变异的来源。意义:准确识别和分配变异性的来源对于准确解释可能影响或改变临床解释或理解的步态至关重要。适当的统计设计允许对变化进行分区以实现这一目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gait & posture
Gait & posture 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
616
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Gait & Posture is a vehicle for the publication of up-to-date basic and clinical research on all aspects of locomotion and balance. The topics covered include: Techniques for the measurement of gait and posture, and the standardization of results presentation; Studies of normal and pathological gait; Treatment of gait and postural abnormalities; Biomechanical and theoretical approaches to gait and posture; Mathematical models of joint and muscle mechanics; Neurological and musculoskeletal function in gait and posture; The evolution of upright posture and bipedal locomotion; Adaptations of carrying loads, walking on uneven surfaces, climbing stairs etc; spinal biomechanics only if they are directly related to gait and/or posture and are of general interest to our readers; The effect of aging and development on gait and posture; Psychological and cultural aspects of gait; Patient education.
期刊最新文献
Validation of an algorithm for detecting turning in people with cognitive impairment, considering dementia disease subtype Impact of mild leg length discrepancy on pelvic alignment and gait compensation in children Fully instrumented gait analysis in rare bone diseases – A scoping review of the literature Effects of external ankle braces on kinematics and kinetics of the lower limb during the cutting maneuver in healthy females The effects of Hyperkyphosis on Balance and Fall Risk in older adults: A Systematic Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1