Cited by 113Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionVestibular and auditory disordersArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Artificial neural network: A new diagnostic posturographic tool for disorders of stance

Krafczyk, Siegbert, Tietze, Simon, Swoboda, Walter, Valkovič, Peter, Brandt, Thomas·2006·Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

Objective To determine the accuracy of diagnoses made with artificial neural network techniques (ANNW) that identify postural sway patterns typical for balance disorders.Methods Body sway was measured by means of posturography during 10 test conditions of increasing difficulty. From a database of 676 subjects 60 training cases (TCs) and 60 validation cases (VCs) were selected in which the following diagnoses had been established clinically: normal subject (NS), postural phobic vertigo (PPV), anterior lobe cerebellar atrophy (CA), primary orthostatic tremor (OT), and acute unilateral vestibular neuritis (VN). A standard 3-layer feed-forward ANNW, using the backpropagation algorithm, was trained with TCs, validated with VCs, and its accuracy tested on 5 new cases.Results ANNW differentiated the established diagnoses with an overall sensitivity and specificity of 0.93. Sensitivity and specificity were 1 for NS and OT; for PPV, 0.87 and 0.96; for CA, 1 and 0.98; and for VN, 0.8 and 0.98, respectively. New subjects were identified with ANNW output variables of the true diagnoses between 0.73 and 1.Conclusions ANNW differentiates postural sway patterns of several distinct clinical balance disorders with high sensitivity and specificity. Once designed and tested ANNW could be considered a black box, which each examiner can apply to predict a specific diagnosis even without a clinical examination.Significance A promising diagnostic tool for disorders of upright stance in selected neurological disorders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.04.022

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 19 · Cited by 113

Authors
Krafczyk, S., Tietze, S., Swoboda, W., Valkovič, P., & Brandt, T.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Comenius University Bratislava (SK)
Corresponding author
Krafczyk, Siegbert
Venue
Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
117
Issue
8
Pages
1692-1698
ISSN
1388-2457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168557596
Cited by
113
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial neural networks, posturography, postural sway, balance disorders, cerebellar atrophy, orthostatic tremor, vestibular neuritis, automated diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Postural Balance, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sensation Disorders, Sensitivity and Specificity, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review