Is the freezing index a valid outcome to assess freezing of gait during turning in Parkinson's disease?

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Frontiers in Neurology Pub Date : 2025-01-08 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fneur.2024.1508800
Maaike Goris, Pieter Ginis, Clint Hansen, Christian Schlenstedt, Jeffrey M Hausdorff, Nicholas D'Cruz, Wim Vandenberghe, Walter Maetzler, Alice Nieuwboer, Moran Gilat
{"title":"Is the freezing index a valid outcome to assess freezing of gait during turning in Parkinson's disease?","authors":"Maaike Goris, Pieter Ginis, Clint Hansen, Christian Schlenstedt, Jeffrey M Hausdorff, Nicholas D'Cruz, Wim Vandenberghe, Walter Maetzler, Alice Nieuwboer, Moran Gilat","doi":"10.3389/fneur.2024.1508800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Freezing of gait (FOG) is a disabling symptom for people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Turning on the spot for one minute in alternating directions (360 turn) while performing a cognitive dual-task (DT) is a fast and sensitive way to provoke FOG. The FOG-index is a widely used wearable sensor-based algorithm to quantify FOG severity during turning. Despite that, the FOG-index's classification performance and criterion validity is not tested against the gold standard (i.e., video-rated time spent freezing). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the FOG-index's classification performance and criterion validity to assess FOG severity during 360 turn. Additionally, we investigated the FOG-index's optimal cutoff values to differentiate between PwPD with and without FOG.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>164 PwPD self-reported the presence of FOG on the New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (NFOGQ) and performed the DT 360 turn in the ON medication state while being videoed and wearing five wearable sensors. Two independent clinical experts rated FOG on video. ROC-AUC values assessed the FOG-index's classification accuracy against self-reported FOG and expert ratings. Spearman-rho was used to evaluate the correlation between expert and FOG-index ratings of FOG severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight patients self-reported FOG, while 104 were classified as a freezer by the experts. The FOG-index had limited classification agreement with the NFOGQ (AUC = 0.60, <i>p</i> = 0.115, sensitivity 46.4%, specificity 72.8%) and the experts (AUC = 0.65, <i>p</i> < 0.001, sensitivity 68.3%, specificity 61.7%). Only weak correlations were found between the algorithm outputs and expert ratings for FOG severity (rho = 0.13-0.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A surprisingly large discrepancy was found between self-reported and expert-rated FOG during the 360 turning task, indicating PwPD do not always notice FOG in daily life. The FOG-index achieved suboptimal classification performance and poor criterion validity to assess FOG severity. Regardless, 360 turning proved a sensitive task to elicit FOG. Further development of the FOG-index is warranted, and long-term follow-up studies are needed to assess the predictive value of the 360 turning task for classifying FOG conversion.</p>","PeriodicalId":12575,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Neurology","volume":"15 ","pages":"1508800"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11750649/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1508800","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Freezing of gait (FOG) is a disabling symptom for people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD). Turning on the spot for one minute in alternating directions (360 turn) while performing a cognitive dual-task (DT) is a fast and sensitive way to provoke FOG. The FOG-index is a widely used wearable sensor-based algorithm to quantify FOG severity during turning. Despite that, the FOG-index's classification performance and criterion validity is not tested against the gold standard (i.e., video-rated time spent freezing). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the FOG-index's classification performance and criterion validity to assess FOG severity during 360 turn. Additionally, we investigated the FOG-index's optimal cutoff values to differentiate between PwPD with and without FOG.

Methods: 164 PwPD self-reported the presence of FOG on the New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (NFOGQ) and performed the DT 360 turn in the ON medication state while being videoed and wearing five wearable sensors. Two independent clinical experts rated FOG on video. ROC-AUC values assessed the FOG-index's classification accuracy against self-reported FOG and expert ratings. Spearman-rho was used to evaluate the correlation between expert and FOG-index ratings of FOG severity.

Results: Twenty-eight patients self-reported FOG, while 104 were classified as a freezer by the experts. The FOG-index had limited classification agreement with the NFOGQ (AUC = 0.60, p = 0.115, sensitivity 46.4%, specificity 72.8%) and the experts (AUC = 0.65, p < 0.001, sensitivity 68.3%, specificity 61.7%). Only weak correlations were found between the algorithm outputs and expert ratings for FOG severity (rho = 0.13-0.38).

Conclusion: A surprisingly large discrepancy was found between self-reported and expert-rated FOG during the 360 turning task, indicating PwPD do not always notice FOG in daily life. The FOG-index achieved suboptimal classification performance and poor criterion validity to assess FOG severity. Regardless, 360 turning proved a sensitive task to elicit FOG. Further development of the FOG-index is warranted, and long-term follow-up studies are needed to assess the predictive value of the 360 turning task for classifying FOG conversion.

Abstract Image

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
冻结指数是评估帕金森病患者转弯时步态冻结的有效结果吗?
步态冻结(FOG)是帕金森病(PwPD)患者的一种致残症状。在进行认知双重任务(DT)的同时,当场以交替方向(360转)转弯一分钟,是一种快速而敏感的引发FOG的方法。FOG指数是一种广泛使用的基于可穿戴传感器的算法,用于量化转弯时的FOG严重程度。尽管如此,fogg指数的分类性能和标准有效性并没有根据黄金标准(即视频评级的冻结时间)进行测试。因此,本研究旨在评价FOG-index的分类性能和标准有效性,以评估360转时FOG的严重程度。此外,我们还研究了FOG指数的最佳截止值,以区分有FOG和没有FOG的PwPD。方法:164名PwPD在新步态冻结问卷(NFOGQ)中自我报告FOG的存在,并在服药状态下进行DT 360转身,同时进行录像并佩戴5个可穿戴传感器。两位独立的临床专家在视频中对FOG进行了评级。ROC-AUC值根据自我报告的FOG和专家评级评估FOG指数的分类准确性。Spearman-rho用于评估专家与FOG-index评分之间的相关性。结果:28例患者自我报告为FOG, 104例患者被专家归类为冰柜。FOG指数与NFOGQ (AUC = 0.60,p = 0.115,敏感性46.4%,特异性72.8%)和专家(AUC = 0.65,p )的分类一致性有限。结论:在360转身任务中,自我报告的FOG与专家评估的FOG之间存在惊人的巨大差异,表明PwPD在日常生活中并不总是注意到FOG。FOG-index在评估FOG严重程度方面的分类性能欠佳,标准效度较差。无论如何,360度转弯被证明是引发FOG的敏感任务。FOG指数的进一步发展是有必要的,需要长期的后续研究来评估360转弯任务对FOG转换分类的预测价值。
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
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers in Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGYNEUROSCIENCES -NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.80%
发文量
2792
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: The section Stroke aims to quickly and accurately publish important experimental, translational and clinical studies, and reviews that contribute to the knowledge of stroke, its causes, manifestations, diagnosis, and management.
期刊最新文献
Development and internal validation of a therapeutic effect predictive model for myofascial pain syndrome. Editorial: Technology developments and clinical applications of artificial intelligence in neurodegenerative diseases. Association between diabetes mellitus, hypertension, migraine, and recurrence risk in benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: a retrospective cohort study. Beyond polysomnography: toward an etiology-driven management of obstructive sleep apnea. Gait as a vital sign: integrating wearables and AI into vestibular and balance medicine.
×
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:604180095
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