Vrutangkumar V Shah, Daniel Muzyka, Adam Jagodinsky, Hannah Casey, James McNames, Mahmoud El-Gohary, Kristen Sowalsky, Delaram Safarpour, Patricia Carlson-Kuhta, Fay B Horak, Christopher M Gomez
{"title":"Clinic vs. daily life gait characteristics in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia.","authors":"Vrutangkumar V Shah, Daniel Muzyka, Adam Jagodinsky, Hannah Casey, James McNames, Mahmoud El-Gohary, Kristen Sowalsky, Delaram Safarpour, Patricia Carlson-Kuhta, Fay B Horak, Christopher M Gomez","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2025.1590150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent findings suggest that a single gait assessment in a clinic may not reflect everyday mobility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We compared gait measures that best differentiated individuals with spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) from age-matched healthy controls (HC) during a supervised gait test in the clinic vs. a week of unsupervised gait during daily life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-six individuals with SCA types 1, 2, 3, and 6, and 13 (HC) wore three Opal inertial sensors (on both feet and lower back) during a 2-minute walk in the clinic and for seven days in daily life. Seventeen gait measures were analyzed to investigate the group differences using Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-tests and area under the curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten gait measures were significantly worse in SCA than HC for the clinic test (<i>p</i> < 0.003), but only 3 were worse in daily life (<i>p</i> < 0.003). Only a few gait measures consistently discriminated groups in both environments. Specifically, variability in Swing Time and Double Support Time had AUCs of 0.99 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001) and 0.96 (<i>p</i> < 0.0001) in the clinic, and 0.84 (<i>p</i> < 0.0003) and 0.80 (<i>p</i> < 0.002) in daily life, respectively. Clinical gait measures showed stronger correlations with clinical outcomes (ie, SARA and FARS-ADL; r = 0.50-0.77) than between daily life gait measures (r = 0.31-0.49). Gait activity in daily life was not statistically significant between the SCA and HC groups (<i>p</i> > 0.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Digital gait measures discriminate SCA in both environments. In-clinic measures are more sensitive, while daily life measures provide ecological validity, highlighting a trade-off and offering complementary insights.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"7 ","pages":"1590150"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12440962/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1590150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Recent findings suggest that a single gait assessment in a clinic may not reflect everyday mobility.
Objective: We compared gait measures that best differentiated individuals with spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) from age-matched healthy controls (HC) during a supervised gait test in the clinic vs. a week of unsupervised gait during daily life.
Methods: Twenty-six individuals with SCA types 1, 2, 3, and 6, and 13 (HC) wore three Opal inertial sensors (on both feet and lower back) during a 2-minute walk in the clinic and for seven days in daily life. Seventeen gait measures were analyzed to investigate the group differences using Mann-Whitney U-tests and area under the curve (AUC).
Results: Ten gait measures were significantly worse in SCA than HC for the clinic test (p < 0.003), but only 3 were worse in daily life (p < 0.003). Only a few gait measures consistently discriminated groups in both environments. Specifically, variability in Swing Time and Double Support Time had AUCs of 0.99 (p < 0.0001) and 0.96 (p < 0.0001) in the clinic, and 0.84 (p < 0.0003) and 0.80 (p < 0.002) in daily life, respectively. Clinical gait measures showed stronger correlations with clinical outcomes (ie, SARA and FARS-ADL; r = 0.50-0.77) than between daily life gait measures (r = 0.31-0.49). Gait activity in daily life was not statistically significant between the SCA and HC groups (p > 0.06).
Conclusions: Digital gait measures discriminate SCA in both environments. In-clinic measures are more sensitive, while daily life measures provide ecological validity, highlighting a trade-off and offering complementary insights.
背景:最近的研究结果表明,在临床单一的步态评估可能不能反映日常活动。目的:我们比较了在临床监督步态测试中最好地区分脊髓小脑性共济失调(SCA)个体与年龄匹配的健康对照(HC)的步态测量,以及在日常生活中一周的无监督步态。方法:26名SCA类型1、2、3、6和13 (HC)的个体在诊所步行2分钟和日常生活7天时佩戴三个Opal惯性传感器(在双脚和下背部)。采用Mann-Whitney u检验和曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)对17项步态测量进行分析,探讨组间差异。结果:在临床试验中,SCA组的10项步态指标明显差于HC组(p p p p p p > 0.06)。结论:数字步态测量可以区分两种环境下的SCA。临床测量更敏感,而日常生活测量提供生态有效性,强调权衡并提供互补的见解。