Discrepancies between plantar pressure devices: Evaluating cross-system reliability for biomechanics, clinical use and predictive modelling

Q2 Health Professions
Foot Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-23 DOI:10.1016/j.foot.2025.102190
Nachiappan Chockalingam , Claudia Giacomozzi , Aoife Healy , Isabel C.N. Sacco
{"title":"Discrepancies between plantar pressure devices: Evaluating cross-system reliability for biomechanics, clinical use and predictive modelling","authors":"Nachiappan Chockalingam ,&nbsp;Claudia Giacomozzi ,&nbsp;Aoife Healy ,&nbsp;Isabel C.N. Sacco","doi":"10.1016/j.foot.2025.102190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Plantar pressure measurement systems are widely used to assess foot function and gait, yet discrepancies in sensor design, measurement protocols, and population characteristics can undermine data comparability. This study investigated three platform‑based and two in‑shoe systems to evaluate key parameters such as the contact area, maximum force, force‑time integral, peak pressure, pressure‑time integral, maximum mean pressure and contact time. Fifteen healthy adults walked at a self‑selected pace, providing a total of 360 footprints from the platforms (barefoot) and 1200 footprints from the in‑shoe devices (shod). Each footprint was then divided into hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot regions. A two‑way repeated‑measures ANOVA (systems × regions) revealed that mean values (MV) and coefficients of variation (CV) frequently differed among devices, indicating limited cross‑system comparability. Moreover, intraclass correlation coefficients for peak pressure ranged between poor (&lt;0.5) and, on rare occasions, moderate (0.5–0.75), further confirming substantial variability. These discrepancies highlight the importance of standardising calibration, data extraction, and analysis protocols, as even devices based on similar resistive or capacitive technologies can produce dissimilar outcomes. Environmental factors such as footwear selection and lab‑based “targeting” errors also contribute to inconsistencies. These challenges are especially relevant as emerging technologies integrate high-resolution wearable sensors with artificial intelligence to support real-time clinical decision-making, disease prediction and personalised interventions. Establishing uniform reporting and validation standards will be essential to ensure robustness and comparability in both traditional biomechanical studies and future AI-driven applications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12349,"journal":{"name":"Foot","volume":"64 ","pages":"Article 102190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958259225000355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Plantar pressure measurement systems are widely used to assess foot function and gait, yet discrepancies in sensor design, measurement protocols, and population characteristics can undermine data comparability. This study investigated three platform‑based and two in‑shoe systems to evaluate key parameters such as the contact area, maximum force, force‑time integral, peak pressure, pressure‑time integral, maximum mean pressure and contact time. Fifteen healthy adults walked at a self‑selected pace, providing a total of 360 footprints from the platforms (barefoot) and 1200 footprints from the in‑shoe devices (shod). Each footprint was then divided into hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot regions. A two‑way repeated‑measures ANOVA (systems × regions) revealed that mean values (MV) and coefficients of variation (CV) frequently differed among devices, indicating limited cross‑system comparability. Moreover, intraclass correlation coefficients for peak pressure ranged between poor (<0.5) and, on rare occasions, moderate (0.5–0.75), further confirming substantial variability. These discrepancies highlight the importance of standardising calibration, data extraction, and analysis protocols, as even devices based on similar resistive or capacitive technologies can produce dissimilar outcomes. Environmental factors such as footwear selection and lab‑based “targeting” errors also contribute to inconsistencies. These challenges are especially relevant as emerging technologies integrate high-resolution wearable sensors with artificial intelligence to support real-time clinical decision-making, disease prediction and personalised interventions. Establishing uniform reporting and validation standards will be essential to ensure robustness and comparability in both traditional biomechanical studies and future AI-driven applications.
足底压力装置之间的差异:评估生物力学、临床使用和预测模型的跨系统可靠性
足底压力测量系统被广泛用于评估足部功能和步态,然而传感器设计、测量方案和人群特征的差异会破坏数据的可比性。该研究调查了三种基于平台和两种鞋内系统,以评估接触面积、最大力、力-时间积分、峰值压力、压力-时间积分、最大平均压力和接触时间等关键参数。15名健康成年人以自己选择的速度行走,从平台(赤脚)提供360个脚印,从鞋内装置(穿鞋)提供1200个脚印。然后将每个足迹分为后足、中足和前足区域。双向重复测量方差分析(系统×区域)显示,设备之间的平均值(MV)和变异系数(CV)经常不同,表明有限的跨系统可比性。此外,峰值压力的类内相关系数介于差(<0.5)和少数情况下的中等(0.5 - 0.75)之间,进一步证实了实质性的变异性。这些差异突出了标准化校准、数据提取和分析协议的重要性,因为即使是基于类似电阻或电容技术的设备也可能产生不同的结果。环境因素,如鞋类选择和基于实验室的“目标”错误也会导致不一致。随着新兴技术将高分辨率可穿戴传感器与人工智能相结合,以支持实时临床决策、疾病预测和个性化干预,这些挑战尤为重要。建立统一的报告和验证标准对于确保传统生物力学研究和未来人工智能驱动应用的稳健性和可比性至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Foot
Foot Health Professions-Podiatry
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: The Foot is an international peer-reviewed journal covering all aspects of scientific approaches and medical and surgical treatment of the foot. The Foot aims to provide a multidisciplinary platform for all specialties involved in treating disorders of the foot. At present it is the only journal which provides this inter-disciplinary opportunity. Primary research papers cover a wide range of disorders of the foot and their treatment, including diabetes, vascular disease, neurological, dermatological and infectious conditions, sports injuries, biomechanics, bioengineering, orthoses and prostheses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书