Objective Evaluation of Cervical Dystonia Using an Inertial Sensor-Based System

The use of digital outcome measures in clinical trials in rare neurological diseases: a systematic literature review

“…No correlation between disease severity and number of steps/day nor between disease severity and PAL [ 40 ] EBIMU 9DOF FD All parameters were validated by comparing with the TSWTRS-total score and the TWSTRS-severity score. The MAV parameters showed a higher correlation with clinical severity than RA parameters [ 84 ] The ICCs were all more than 0.9 for the four parameters, which showed good agreement for all parameters [ 84 ] eMotion Faros 180 ALS Average daytime active; percentage of daytime active; total daytime activity score; total 24-h activity score showed correlations with ALSFRS-R total and gross motor domain scores [ 141 ] All the activity endpoints investigated changed from baseline over the course of the study (48 weeks) to indicate a decline in physical activity over time [ 141 ] Fitbit One TM Pompe disease Mean step count differed by age ( p < 0.01), diagnostic delay ( p < 0.05), disease duration ( p < 0.05), and ambulatory status ( p < 0.05) Patient-reported “fatigue and pain” score was inversely correlated with step count ( p < 0.05) and peak 1-min activity ( p < 0.01) [ 115 ] GaitUp Physilog 5, Lausanne, Switzerland FRDA Controls were significantly more active than the FRDA group. Peak swing and stance period were the most discriminatory parameters.…”

Hold that pose: capturing cervical dystonia's head deviation severity from video

“…Despite the TWSTRS‐2’s anchors for head posture, its application may be more likely to exhibit a superlinear relationship to objective measures because of the natural log‐scale properties of human perception 35 . This was evident when assessments from inertial measurement units were compared to the original TWSTRS, though with only eight subjects 15 . The lower agreement with the TWSTRS‐2 may also arise from inter‐rater variability among the 10 raters applying the TWSTRS‐2.…”

“… 35 This was evident when assessments from inertial measurement units were compared to the original TWSTRS, though with only eight subjects. 15 The lower agreement with the TWSTRS‐2 may also arise from inter‐rater variability among the 10 raters applying the TWSTRS‐2. Nevertheless, the significant agreements for all axes for both scales suggest that, regardless of the specific rater and rating system against which they might be compared, CMOR provides valid estimates of head posture severity.…”

“… 10 More commonly, instrumented methods have captured 3D orientation of the head in CD using various motion capture technologies. These have included, for example, (1) electromagnetic‐based sensors, 11 , 12 , 13 (2) sets of multiple reflective markers and either optoelectronic 5 or infrared 14 cameras, (3) inertial measurement units usually combining accelerometers and gyroscopes, 15 (4) wearable direct sensors, such as a combination of inclinometer and torsiometer, 16 or (5) wireless thin‐film accelerometers. 17 These systems typically operate with high spatial and temporal resolution, and some low cost options have emerged.…”