Freezing of gait (FOG) is a debilitating symptom of Parkinson's disease increases the risk of falling. Despite being a common symptom, it is still difficult to evaluate freezing of gait quickly and accurately. Currently, the gold-standard method to determine the severity of FOG is a manual analysis of video footage by an experienced assessor, collected during standardized FOG-provoking walking tests. Because this is a very time-intensive process, where different assessors sometimes obtain different results, our team at KU Leuven have developed an artificial-intelligent (AI) algorithm trained to identify FOG episodes based on wearable inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor data. The AI algorithm has already undergone initial validation during laboratory testing, yielding promising results. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the AI algorithm can accurately detect FOG episodes in a less controlled environment, namely the home environment. In a second phase, the investigators will also use the collected data to improve the AI algorithm for automated FOG detection in the home. Finally, the investigators want to explore whether the AI algorithm can detect FOG in real-time.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
126
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences
Leuven, Belgium
RECRUITINGSports Science and Neurorehabilitation
Hamburg, Germany
NOT_YET_RECRUITINGCenter for the study of movement, cognition and mobility
Tel Aviv, Israel
NOT_YET_RECRUITINGComparing the agreement between AID-FOG and gold-standard expert annotation to detect the percentage of time spent with freezing of gait (FOG) in relation to total time duration (%TF).
The primary outcome (percentage of time spent with FOG in relation to total task duration = %TF) will be established by manual annotations of video footage by an experienced assessor (=gold-standard reference) and by the automated AID-FOG algorithm v1.0 applied post-hoc (i.e. offline) to IMU data collected during the same walking tasks. This will be calculated for standardized walking tasks on which the AID-FOG algorithm has been trained, standardized walking tasks on which the AID-FOG algorithm was not trained, and a free-living walking condition on which the AID-FOG algorithm was not trained.
Time frame: T0=test day 1: free-living gait assessment (5 hours), T1=test day 2: free-living gait (5 hours) and T2= test day 3: standardized gait (4 hours)
F1-score
Same as primary outcome, but now for the F1-score (rather than percent TF). F1 scores range between 0 and 1, the higher the score the better.
Time frame: T0=test day 1: free-living gait assessment (5 hours), T1=test day 2: free-living gait (5 hours) and T2= test day 3: standardized gait (4 hours)
Number of FOG episodes
Same as primary outcome, but now for the absolute number of FOG episodes.
Time frame: T0: free-living gait (5 hours), T1: free-living gait (5 hours) and T2: standardized gait (4 hours)
The performance of the AID-FOG algorithm to differentiate between the FOG manifestations.
Freezing of gait (FOG) manifests in multiple forms, including akinetic and kinetic subtypes, which may be associated with trembling or occur without it. This study investigates the performance of AID-FOG in discriminating between these manifestations, using expert annotations as the reference standard.
Time frame: T0=test day 1: free-living gait assessment (5 hours), T1=test day 2: free-living gait (5 hours) and T2= test day 3: standardized gait (4 hours)
Comparing performance of AID-FOG to detect freezing in OFF and ON medication states.
The FOG outcomes as obtained by the human expert and the offline AID-FOG algorithm v1.0 will be calculated for both the OFF and ON medication states. These scores will be compared to evaluate the change in algorithm performance depending on medication status. The FOG outcomes will be the percentage TF which ranges between 0-100 percent. The higher the percentage the more freezing the patient has. But also the F1-score which ranges between 0-1. The higher the score the more overlap there is between the expert and the algorithm.
Time frame: T0=test day 1: free-living gait assessment (5 hours), T1=test day 2: free-living gait (5 hours) and T2= test day 3: standardized gait (4 hours)
Consistency of FOG detection with AID-FOG compared between two free-living assessments
The agreement in FOG detection (%TF, F1-score) between the AID-FOG algorithm and the gold-standard human annotations will be compared between the two free-living test days.
Time frame: T0= test day 1: free-living gait (5 hours) and T1= test day 2: free-living gait (5 hours)
The number of false detections of FOG episodes during free-living
The absolute sum of false detections made by the algorithm.
Time frame: T0=test day 1: free-living gait assessment (5 hours), T1=test day 2: free-living gait (5 hours) and T2= test day 3: standardized gait (4 hours)
Comparing AID-FOG with subjective FOG
The FOG outcomes obtained with AID-FOG will be correlated to the total score of the New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (NFOGQ) and Patient Reported Outcomes of FOG (PRO).
Time frame: T0=test day 1: free-living gait assessment (5 hours), T1=test day 2: free-living gait (5 hours) and T2= test day 3: standardized gait (4 hours)
Performance of automated FOG detection during free-living mobility
The FOG outcomes obtained with AID-FOG offline will be calculated from multiple days of free-living mobility IMU data. These outcomes will be correlated to FOG severity as determined during the observed walking tasks of the project and self-reported FOG severity.
Time frame: 1 week of free-living mobility with IMU
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.