Background and purpose: Recent findings suggest that a gait assessment at a discrete moment in a clinic or laboratory setting may not reflect functional, everyday mobility. As a step towards better understanding gait during daily life in neurological populations, we compared gait measures that best discriminated people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and people with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) from their respective, age-matched, healthy control subjects (MS-Ctl, PD-Ctl) in laboratory tests versus a week of daily life monitoring. Methods: We recruited 15 people with MS (age mean ± SD: 49 ± 10 years), 16 MS-Ctl (45 ± 11 years), 16 people with idiopathic PD (71 ± 5 years), and 15 PD-Ctl (69 ± 7 years). Subjects wore 3 inertial sensors (one each foot and lower back) in the laboratory followed by 7 days during daily life. Mann–Whitney U test and area under the curve (AUC) compared differences between PD and PD-Ctl, and between MS and MS-Ctl in the laboratory and in daily life. Results: Participants wore sensors for 60–68 h in daily life. Measures that best discriminated gait characteristics in people with MS and PD from their respective control groups were different between the laboratory gait test and a week of daily life. Specifically, the toe-off angle best discriminated MS versus MS-Ctl in the laboratory (AUC [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.63–0.96]) whereas gait speed in daily life (AUC = 0.84 [0.69–1.00]). In contrast, the lumbar coronal range of motion best discriminated PD versus PD-Ctl in the laboratory (AUC = 0.78 [0.59–0.96]) whereas foot-strike angle in daily life (AUC = 0.84 [0.70–0.98]). AUCs were larger in daily life compared to the laboratory. Conclusions: Larger AUC for daily life gait measures compared to the laboratory gait measures suggest that daily life monitoring may be more sensitive to impairments from neurological disease, but each neurological disease may require different gait outcome measures.

This study aimed to determine the most sensitive objective measures of balance dysfunction that differ between people with Parkinson’s Disease (PD) and healthy controls. One-hundred and forty-four people with PD and 79 age-matched healthy controls wore eight inertial sensors while performing tasks to measure five domains of balance: standing posture (Sway), anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs), automatic postural responses (APRs), dynamic posture (Gait) and limits of stability (LOS). To reduce the initial 93 measures, we selected uncorrelated measures that were most sensitive to PD. After applying a threshold on the Standardized Mean Difference between PD and healthy controls, 44 measures remained; and after reducing highly correlated measures, 24 measures remained. The four most sensitive measures were from APAs and Gait domains. The random forest with 10-fold cross-validation on the remaining measures (n = 24) showed an accuracy to separate PD from healthy controls of 82.4%—identical to result for all measures. Measures from the most sensitive domains, APAs and Gait, were significantly correlated with the severity of disease and with patient-related outcomes. This method greatly reduced the objective measures of balance to the most sensitive for PD, while still capturing four of the five domains of balance.

Although the use of wearable technology to characterize gait disorders in daily life is increasing, there is no consensus on which specific gait bout length should be used to characterize gait. Clinical trialists using daily life gait quality as study outcomes need to understand how gait bout length affects the sensitivity and specificity of measures to discriminate pathological gait as well as the reliability of gait measures across gait bout lengths. We investigated whether Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects how gait characteristics change as bout length changes, and how gait bout length affects the reliability and discriminative ability of gait measures to identify gait impairments in people with PD compared to neurotypical Old Adults (OA). We recruited 29 people with PD and 20 neurotypical OA of similar age for this study. Subjects wore 3 inertial sensors, one on each foot and one over the lumbar spine all day, for 7 days. To investigate which gait bout lengths should be included to extract gait measures, we determined the range of gait bout lengths available across all subjects. To investigate if the effect of bout length on each gait measure is similar or not between subjects with PD and OA, we used a growth curve analysis. For reliability and discriminative ability of each gait measure as a function of gait bout length, we used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Ninety percent of subjects walked with a bout length of less than 53 strides during the week, and the majority (>50%) of gait bouts consisted of less than 12 strides. Although bout length affected all gait measures, the effects depended on the specific measure and sometimes differed for PD versus OA. Specifically, people with PD did not increase/decrease cadence and swing duration with bout length in the same way as OA. ICC and AUC characteristics tended to be larger for shorter than longer gait bouts. Our findings suggest that PD interferes with the scaling of cadence and swing duration with gait bout length. Whereas control subjects gradually increased cadence and decreased swing duration as bout length increased, participants with PD started with higher than normal cadence and shorter than normal stride duration for the smallest bouts, and cadence and stride duration changed little as bout length increased, so differences between PD and OA disappeared for the longer bout lengths. Gait measures extracted from shorter bouts are more common, more reliable, and more discriminative, suggesting that shorter gait bouts should be used to extract potential digital biomarkers for people with PD.

Objectives: To investigate if digital measures of gait (walking and turning) collected passively over a week of daily activities in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) increases the discriminative ability to predict future falls compared to fall history alone.Methods: We recruited 34 individuals with PD (17 with history of falls and 17 non-fallers), age: 68 ± 6 years, MDS-UPDRS III ON: 31 ± 9. Participants were classified as fallers (at least one fall) or non-fallers based on self-reported falls in past 6 months. Eighty digital measures of gait were derived from 3 inertial sensors (Opal^® V2 System) placed on the feet and lower back for a week of passive gait monitoring. Logistic regression employing a “best subsets selection strategy” was used to find combinations of measures that discriminated future fallers from non-fallers, and the Area Under Curve (AUC). Participants were followed via email every 2 weeks over the year after the study for self-reported falls.Results: Twenty-five subjects reported falls in the follow-up year. Quantity of gait and turning measures (e.g., number of gait bouts and turns per hour) were similar in future fallers and non-fallers. The AUC to discriminate future fallers from non-fallers using fall history alone was 0.77 (95% CI: [0.50–1.00]). In contrast, the highest AUC for gait and turning digital measures with 4 combinations was 0.94 [0.84–1.00]. From the top 10 models (all AUCs>0.90) via the best subsets strategy, the most consistently selected measures were variability of toe-out angle of the foot (9 out of 10), pitch angle of the foot during mid-swing (8 out of 10), and peak turn velocity (7 out of 10).Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of considering precise digital measures, captured via sensors strategically placed on the feet and low back, to quantify several different aspects of gait (walking and turning) during daily life to improve the classification of future fallers in PD.