The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Identification of Subtypes of Post-Stroke and Neurotypical Gait Behaviors Using Neural Network Analysis of Gait Cycle Kinematics
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: Heterogeneous types of gait impairment are common post-stroke. Studies used supervised and unsupervised machine learning on discrete biomechanical features to summarize the gait cycle and identify common patterns of gait behaviors. However, discrete features cannot account for temporal variations that occur during gait. Here, we propose a novel machine-learning pipeline to identify subgroups of gait behaviors post-stroke using kinematic time series data. Methods: We analyzed ankle and knee kinematic data during treadmill walking data in 39 individuals post-stroke and 28 neurotypical controls. The data were first input into a supervised dual-stage Convolutional Neural Network-Temporal Convolutional Network, trained to extract temporal and spatial gait features. Then, we used these features to find clusters of different gait behaviors using unsupervised time series k-means. We repeated the clustering process using 10,000 bootstrap training data samples and a Gaussian Mixture Model to identify stable clusters representative of our dataset. Finally, we assessed the kinematic differences between the identified clusters using 1D statistical parametric mapping ANOVA. We then compared gait spatiotemporal and clinical characteristics between clusters using one-way ANOVA. Results: We obtained five clusters: two clusters of neurotypical individuals (C1 and C2) and three clusters of individuals post-stroke (S1, S2, S3). C1 had kinematics that resembled the normative gait pattern. Individuals in C2 had a shorter stride time than C1. Individuals in S1 had mild impairment and walked with increased bilateral knee flexion during the loading response. Individuals in S2 had moderate impairment, were the slowest among the clusters, took shorter steps, had increased knee flexion during stance bilaterally and reduced paretic knee flexion during swing. Individuals in S3 had mild impairment, asymmetric swing time, had increased ankle abduction during the gait cycle and reduced dorsiflexion bilaterally during loading response and stance. Every individual was assigned to a cluster with a cluster membership likelihood above 93%. Conclusions: Our results indicate that joint kinematics in individuals post-stroke are distinct from controls, even in those individuals with mild impairment. The three subgroups post-stroke showed distinct kinematic impairments during specific phases in the gait cycle, providing additional information to clinicians for gait retraining interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Review of deep learning: concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions
Alzubaidi, L., Zhang, J., Humaidi, A. J., Al-Dujaili, A., Duan, Y., Al-Shamma, O., Santamaría, J., Fadhel, M. A., Al-Amidie, M., & Farhan, L. (2021) · Journal of Big Data · doi:10.1186/s40537-021-00444-8 · Cited by 7,906
Temporal Convolutional Networks for Action Segmentation and Detection
Lea, C., Flynn, M. D., Vidal, R., Reiter, A., & Hager, G. D. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.113 · Cited by 2,238 · cited 1×
“Since TCN performs well in capturing temporal dependencies [53], with non-time-normalized raw data as input, TCN might weigh more in a CNN-TCN architecture, and TCN alone could be sufficient to identify the gait clusters.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 55
- 10.1093/brain/102.2.405 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00165-0 · DOI
- 10.1161/01.STR.26.6.982 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1161/str.0000000000000098 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/15459683231212864 · DOI
- 10.1016/0966-6362(96)01063-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.03.007 · DOI
- 10.1080/03091902.2020.1822940 · DOI
- 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2811415 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0304558 · DOI
- 10.1098/rsif.2022.0402 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-031-46005-0_24 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-019-38748-8 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011556 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0192345 · DOI
- 10.32614/RJ-2019-023 · DOI
- Hastie, 2009, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2, 1
- 10.1177/15459683211019346 · DOI
- 10.3389/fneur.2022.1032417 · DOI
- 10.3138/ptc.41.6.304 · DOI
- 10.1080/09638280400008982 · DOI
- 10.2340/1650197771331 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.589739 · DOI
- 10.2307/1419876 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.06.009 · DOI
- 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00251 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.10.002 · DOI
- 10.1242/jeb.149450 · DOI
- 10.1152/jn.00416.2020 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0254319 · DOI
- Kuch, 2024, Code Repository
- 10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2977049 · DOI
- Bai, 2018, An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling, arXiv:1803.01271 · arXiv
- 10.1109/18.119724 · DOI
- 10.1088/1757-899X/336/1/012017 · DOI
- 10.7717/peerj.2652 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.008 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/BF01908075 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7717/peerj.4640 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13643-019-1063-z · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.12.017 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neucli.2015.09.005 · DOI
- 10.3389/fneur.2018.00564 · DOI
- 10.1310/JB16-V04F-JAL5-H1UV · DOI
- 10.1177/0269215506070315 · DOI
- 10.3389/fnhum.2021.762223 · DOI
- 10.1155/2018/2321045 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.08.005 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.expneurol.2012.08.031 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.08.014 · DOI
- 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2265887 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2022.111049 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.03.189 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011462 · DOI
- 10.1177/0269215513486497 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuch, A., Schweighofer, N., Finley, J. M., McKenzie, A., Wen, Y., & Sánchez, N.
- Affiliations
- Chapman University (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sánchez, Natalia
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
- Published
- 2025
- Volume
- 33
- Pages
- 1927-1938
- ISSN
- 1534-4320 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-0210
- PMC
- PMC12143210
- OpenAlex
- W4410204317
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 4.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Chapman University Digital Commons (Chapman University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- NIH (NCMRR R03HD107630, NCATS R03TR004248, KL2TR001854)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Gait Recognition and Analysis
- Keywords
- post-stroke gait, knee flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, stride time, paretic limb, non-paretic limb, convolutional neural network feature extraction, temporal convolutional network
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