Comparison of different machine learning models to enhance sacral acceleration-based estimations of running stride temporal variables and peak vertical ground reaction force
Comparison of different machine learning models to enhance sacral acceleration-based estimations of running stride temporal variables and peak vertical ground reaction force
Aurélien Patoz,T. Lussiana,2 Authors,D. Malatesta
TLDR
The simplest ML model (LR) should be used to improve the accuracy of the IMU-based estimations and may be beneficial when monitoring running-related injury risk factors in real-world settings.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Machine learning (ML) was used to predict contact ($tctc)andflight(tftf)time,dutyfactor(DF)andpeakverticalforce(Fv,maxFv,max)fromIMU−basedestimations.Onehundredrunnersranonaninstrumentedtreadmill(9–13 km/h)whilewearingasacral−mountedIMU.Linearregression(LR),supportvectorregressionandtwo−layerneural−networkweretrained(80participants)usingIMU−basedestimations,runningspeed,stridefrequencyandbodymass.Predictions(remaining20participants)werecomparedtogoldstandard(kineticdatacollectedusingtheforceplate)bycalculatingthemeanabsolutepercentageerror(MAPE).MAPEsofFv,maxFv,maxdidnotsignificantlydifferamongitsestimationandpredictions(P = 0.37),whilepredictionMAPEsfortctc,tf$tf and DF were significantly smaller than corresponding estimation MAPEs (P ≤ 0.003). There were no significant differences among prediction MAPEs obtained from the three ML models (P ≥ 0.80). Errors of the ML models were equal to or smaller than (≤32%) the smallest real difference for the four variables, while errors of the estimations were not (15–45%), indicating that ML models were sufficiently accurate to detect a clinically important difference. The simplest ML model (LR) should be used to improve the accuracy of the IMU-based estimations. These improvements may be beneficial when monitoring running-related injury risk factors in real-world settings.
