Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder. Gait impairments are common among people with PD. Wearable sensor systems can be used for gait analysis by providing spatio-temporal parameters useful to investigate the progression of gait problems in Parkinson disease. However, various methods and tools with very high variability have been developed. The aim of this study is to review published articles of the last 10 years (from 2008 to 2018) concerning the application of wearable sensors to assess spatio-temporal parameters of gait in patients with PD. We focus on inertial sensors used for gait analysis in the clinical environment (i.e., we do not cover the use of inertial sensors to monitor walking or general activities at home, in unsupervised environments). Materials and Methods: Relevant articles were searched in the Medline database using Pubmed. Results and Discussion: Two hundred ninety-four articles were initially identified while searching the scientific literature regarding this topic. Thirty-six articles were selected and included in this review. Conclusion: Wearable motion sensors are useful, non-invasive, low-cost, and objective tools that are being extensively used to perform gait analysis on PD patients. Being able to diagnose and monitor the progression of PD patients makes wearable sensors very useful to evaluate clinical efficacy before and after therapeutic interventions. However, there is no uniformity in the use of wearable sensors in terms of: number of sensors, positioning, chosen parameters, and other characteristics. Future research should focus on standardizing the measurement setup and selecting which spatio-temporal parameters are the most informative to analyze gait in PD. These parameters should be provided as standard assessments in all studies to increase replicability and comparability of results.

Falls are a common, serious threat to the health and self-confidence of the elderly. Assessment of fall risk is an important aspect of effective fall prevention programs. In order to test whether it is possible to outperform current prognostic tools for falls, we analyzed 1010 variables pertaining to mobility collected from 976 elderly subjects (InCHIANTI study). We trained and validated a data-driven model that issues probabilistic predictions about future falls. We benchmarked the model against other fall risk indicators: history of falls, gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery (Guralnik et al. 1994), and the literature-based fall risk assessment tool FRAT-up (Cattelani et al. 2015). Parsimony in the number of variables included in a tool is often considered a proxy for ease of administration. We studied how constraints on the number of variables affect predictive accuracy. The proposed model and FRAT-up both attained the same discriminative ability; the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for multiple falls was 0.71. They outperformed the other risk scores, which reported AUCs for multiple falls between 0.64 and 0.65. Thus, it appears that both data-driven and literature-based approaches are better at estimating fall risk than commonly used fall risk indicators. The accuracy–parsimony analysis revealed that tools with a small number of predictors (~1–5) were suboptimal. Increasing the number of variables improved the predictive accuracy, reaching a plateau at ~20–30, which we can consider as the best trade-off between accuracy and parsimony. Obtaining the values of these ~20–30 variables does not compromise usability, since they are usually available in comprehensive geriatric assessments.

Although turning has been reported as one of the leading activities performed during a fall, and falls during turning result in 8-times more hip fractures than falls during linear gait, the quantity and quality of turns resulting in falls remain unknown since turns are rarely assessed during activities of daily living. 160 community-dwelling older adults were monitored for one week using smartphone technology. Turn measures and activity rates were quantified. Fall incidence within 12 months from continuous monitoring defined fall status, with 7/153 prospective fallers/non-fallers. Based on the analysis of 718,582 turns, prospective fallers turned less frequently, took longer to turn, and were less consistent in turn angle (p = 0.007, 0.025, and 0.038, respectively). Prospective fallers also walked slower and spent less time walking and turning and more time engaged in sedentary behavior (p = 0.043, 0.012, and 0.015, respectively). Individuals experiencing decline in the control of gait and/or turning may attempt to reduce their risk of falling by limiting their exposure and implementing cautionary movement strategies while turning. Since there was no difference in the overall active rate between prospective fallers and non-fallers, impaired gait and turning ability, specifically, may attribute to elevated fall risk within this cohort.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

The fall risk assessment tool (FRAT-up) is a tool for predicting falls in community-dwelling older people based on a meta-analysis of fall risk factors. Based on the fall risk factor profile, this tool calculates the individual risk of falling over the next year. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of FRAT-up in predicting future falls in multiple cohorts. Information about fall risk factors in 4 European cohorts of older people [Activity and Function in the Elderly (ActiFE), Germany; English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA), England; Invecchiare nel Chianti (InCHIANTI), Italy; Irish Longitudinal Study on Aging (TILDA), Ireland] was used to calculate the FRAT-up risk score in individual participants. Information about falls that occurred after the assessment of the risk factors was collected from subsequent longitudinal follow-ups. We compared the performance of FRAT-up against those of other prediction models specifically fitted in each cohort by calculation of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The AUC attained by FRAT-up is 0.562 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.530-0.594] for ActiFE, 0.699 (95% CI 0.680-0.718) for ELSA, 0.636 (95% CI 0.594-0.681) for InCHIANTI, and 0.685 (95% CI 0.660-0.709) for TILDA. Mean FRAT-up AUC as estimated from meta-analysis is 0.646 (95% CI 0.584-0.708), with substantial heterogeneity between studies. In each cohort, FRAT-up discriminant ability is surpassed, at most, by the cohort-specific risk model fitted on that same cohort. We conclude that FRAT-up is a valid approach to estimate risk of falls in populations of community-dwelling older people. However, further studies should be performed to better understand the reasons for the observed heterogeneity across studies and to refine a tool that performs homogeneously with higher accuracy measures across different populations.