发表机构
The University of Texas at El Paso（德克萨斯大学埃尔帕索分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究评估自适应步态生物反馈在慢性踝关节不稳中的应用，采用参与者留出建模与特定更新，结果显示模型判别性能良好且更新有效，但未证实临床分类或因果益处。
AI 中文摘要
自适应步态生物反馈可能支持慢性踝关节不稳中的重复练习，但其评估必须同时考虑模型性能和人体反应。我们使用参与者留出的留一受试者交叉验证（LOSO），在20名参与者中评估了一个时间卷积分类器，该分类器基于协议定义、角度导出的GOOD/BAD步态周期标签。自适应干预组的7名参与者在三周内完成了九次会话，每次会话分析一次运动捕捉记录。在失败会话后更新的模型与其父模型在用于候选选择的同会话验证子集和首次后续自适应会话记录上进行了离线比较。在基线、干预后和7天保留期，比较了自适应组与10名按顺序入组的对照组的额状面踝关节角度。在20个留出折中，平均折级受试者工作特征曲线下面积（AUROC）为0.948，对超过角度阈值的BAD周期的敏感性为0.941，对达到角度阈值的GOOD周期的特异性为0.366。候选模型中BAD类F1在同会话子集上平均高出0.187，在首次后续记录上高出0.118。在干预后，自适应组的基线调整额状面踝关节角度比对照组低5.168度（95%置信区间，低1.766至8.569度）；保留期对比不确定。这些发现表征了重复生物反馈使用期间群体模型的判别能力和离线参与者特定更新，以及非随机化的干预后额状面踝关节角度关联。它们并未确立独立的临床步态分类或更新的因果益处。
英文摘要
Adaptive gait biofeedback may support repeated practice in chronic ankle instability, but its evaluation must address model performance and human response. We evaluated a temporal convolutional classifier on protocol-defined, angle-derived GOOD/BAD gait-cycle labels using participant-held-out leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) cross-validation in 20 participants. Seven participants in the adaptive-intervention group completed nine sessions over three weeks, with one motion-capture recording analyzed per session. Models updated after failed sessions were compared offline with their parent models on the same-session validation subset used for candidate selection and the first subsequent adaptive-session recording. Frontal-plane ankle angle was compared between the adaptive group and 10 sequentially enrolled controls at Baseline, Post, and 7-day Retention. Across 20 held-out folds, mean fold-level area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.948, sensitivity for angle-threshold-exceeding BAD cycles was 0.941, and specificity for angle-threshold-meeting GOOD cycles was 0.366. Mean BAD-class F1 was higher in candidate models by 0.187 on the same-session subset and 0.118 on the first subsequent recording. At Post, the adaptive group had a baseline-adjusted frontal-plane ankle angle 5.168 degrees lower than controls (95% confidence interval, 1.766-8.569 degrees lower); the Retention contrast was uncertain. These findings characterize population-model discrimination and offline participant-specific updating during repeated biofeedback use, alongside a nonrandomized Post frontal-plane ankle angle association. They do not establish independent clinical gait classification or a causal benefit of updating.
Comments28 pages (14-page main manuscript and 14-page supplementary material), 5 main figures
