Skip to main content

Sensor-based characterization of daily walking: a new paradigm in pre-frailty/frailty assessment



Frailty is a highly recognized geriatric syndrome resulting in decline in reserve across multiple physiological systems. Impaired physical function is one of the major indicators of frailty. The goal of this study was to evaluate an algorithm that discriminates between frailty groups (non-frail and pre-frail/frail) based on gait performance parameters derived from unsupervised daily physical activity (DPA).


DPA was acquired for 48 h from older adults (≥65 years) using a tri-axial accelerometer motion-sensor. Continuous bouts of walking for 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s without pauses were identified from acceleration data. These were then used to extract qualitative measures (gait variability, gait asymmetry, and gait irregularity) and quantitative measures (total continuous walking duration and maximum number of continuous steps) to characterize gait performance. Association between frailty and gait performance parameters was assessed using multinomial logistic models with frailty as the dependent variable, and gait performance parameters along with demographic parameters as independent variables.


One hundred twenty-six older adults (44 non-frail, 60 pre-frail, and 22 frail, based on the Fried index) were recruited. Step- and stride-times, frequency domain gait variability, and continuous walking quantitative measures were significantly different between non-frail and pre-frail/frail groups (p < 0.05). Among the five different durations (20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s), gait performance parameters extracted from 60s continuous walks provided the best frailty assessment results. Using the 60s gait performance parameters in the logistic model, pre-frail/frail group (vs. non-frail) was identified with 76.8% sensitivity and 80% specificity.


Everyday walking characteristics were found to be associated with frailty. Along with quantitative measures of physical activity, qualitative measures are critical elements representing the early stages of frailty. In-home gait assessment offers an opportunity to screen for and monitor frailty.

Trial registration

The clinical trial was retrospectively registered on June 18th, 2013 with, identifier NCT01880229.

Peer Review reports


Among the population who are 60 years or older, frailty is a highly recognized syndrome that is associated with decline in function and reserve across multiple physiologic systems [1,2,3,4,5]. Frailty is characterized by a high vulnerability to adverse health outcomes such as disability, falls, hospitalization, institutionalization, and mortality [1]. Reduction or impairment of physical function is a prime indicator of frailty [2], and frailty is one of the major reasons for falls in old age [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Many definitions of frailty have been proposed: Fried et al. used five criteria (slowness, exhaustion, weakness, low-activity and weight-loss) to identify frailty [2]; Rockwood et al. developed a frailty index based on impairments in cognitive status, mood, motivation, communication, mobility, balance, bowel and bladder function, activities of daily living, nutrition, social resources and number of comorbidities [13]; Mitnitski et al. constructed a frailty index based on 20 deficits as observed in a structural clinical examination based on the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) [14]; Jones et al. also based their frailty index based on CGA which included 10 standard domains to construct a three level frailty index permitting risk stratification of future adverse outcomes [15]; and Chin et al. compared three different working definitions of frailty – inactivity plus low energy intake, inactivity plus weight-loss and inactivity plus low body mass index [16]. Although many definitions of frailty have been proposed, we use Fried’s frailty criteria as the most commonly implemented frailty assessment tool in our study. However, there is currently no objective method for assessing frailty that incorporates assessment of daily physical activity (DPA).

DPA data has been recently used to assess physical function, especially with the help of wearable sensor technology. Using wearable devices, it is possible to continuously measure DPA in the least intrusive manner and for longer durations of time in the participants’ natural environment. Among several DPA, motion analysis of the trunk during walking is known to provide insights regarding neuromuscular deficits associated with frailty and aging [12]. In our previous studies, among DPA measures (walking, standing, sitting, and lying), quantitative parameters related to walking, such as total walking duration and maximum number of steps, best discriminated between non-frail and pre-frail groups, with highest effect sizes for the number of steps and the percentage of walking duration within a 24-h time period [17]. While promising, we found that none of these outcomes (or their combination in a multinomial logistic analysis) could significantly discriminate between frailty groups when adjusted for age [17].

In this study, we aimed to improve detection of frailty-related neuromuscular deficits based on gait performance parameters derived from unsupervised DPA. Previous studies have used trunk motion data from supervised in-lab gait tests to characterize sensorimotor gait performance among frail elders including gait variability, asymmetry, initiation, and irregularity [11, 12, 18,19,20,21,22]. We hypothesized that using more robust measures of unsupervised DPA gait performance such as gait variability, asymmetry and irregularity (instead of number of steps) it would be possible to distinguish between non-frail and pre-frail/frail older adults.


This observational cross-sectional study was performed at Arizona Center on Aging, Tucson, AZ. Participants in this study were from primary, secondary, and tertiary health-care settings within our academic network and also from community providers and aging service organizations. DPA was recorded from eligible volunteers for 48 h and the walking data from the DPA was processed to study the gait performance parameters and associate these characteristics with frailty.


Older adults (65 years or older), without severe mobility disorder and the ability to walk at least 10 m with or without an assistive device, were considered eligible for the study. Participants with cognitive-impairment (screened by a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [23] score of < 23) or terminal illness were excluded. All the eligible participants signed a written consent form according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki [24], approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Arizona.

Demographic and clinical measures

The recorded clinical measures included self-reported history of falls, use of assistive device and the number of prescriptions. Interviewer-administered questionnaires included the MMSE, Mobility-Tiredness Scale [25], Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) [26], Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) [27], and Barthel Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Scale [28].

Frailty assessment

Frailty was assessed using the five criteria proposed by Fried et al. [2], including: self-reported weight loss, weakness measure by the grip strength, self-reported exhaustion, slowness measure by the walking test, and self-reported low energy expenditure. A score of one point was given for each criterion recorded, totaling a score in the range of 0–5. Frailty was categorized as follows: non-frail (score 0), pre-frail (score 1–2), and frail (score 3–5).

Sensor-based daily physical activity assessment

DPA was quantified for two consecutive days (48 h) using a tri-axial accelerometer sensor (PAMSys, BioSensics Cambridge, MA, USA) fixed in a tee-shirt, with a device pocket located at the sternum. PAMSys is a small (5.1 × 3 × 1.6 cm), light (24 g) recording system containing inertial sensors. PAMSys is an ambulatory system designed and developed for human motion analysis using a kinematic sensor. It uses one kinematic sensor placed on the chest and is capable of accurately identifying and recording postural transitions (sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit), laying, walking, and standing [29,30,31]. PAMSys uses discrete wavelet transformation techniques based on a previously validated algorithm (PAMWare, BioSensics Cambridge, MA, USA) to identify walking bouts [32,33,34]. Using this method, walking bouts were defined by a minimum of three successive steps [29], where steps were estimated by the detection of an acceleration peak beyond a predefined threshold after filtering the signal [31]. Using this software several gait parameters were derived including: the duration of walking, walking bout times (duration of each walking episode), number of steps per walking bout, and walking cadence per bout. PAMWare is 87% sensitive and 87% specific for gait detection [29, 30]. In the current study, we used raw vertical acceleration data recorded by the PAMSys tri-axial accelerometer sensor, as well as the timing of walking bouts from the PAMWare software to extract gait performance parameters within continuous walking bouts.

Continuous walking bouts

Previous studies that explored the gait characteristics of non-disabled adults for 2 weeks to define walking duration, found that 81% of all walking bouts lasted about 60 s [35, 36]. Further, previous studies suggested that a duration of 60-s continuous data would provide a reliable sample for nonlinear dynamic analysis [37]. Accordingly, in our study, we used continuous walking bouts of 60 s or longer for the extraction of gait performance parameters. In addition to the 60s analysis, all the gait performance parameters were extracted for 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s lengths of continuous walking bouts to investigate the effect of continuous walk length on data analysis and results. Gait performance parameters including time- and frequency-domain gait variability, gait asymmetry, and gait irregularity were extracted from these continuous walking bouts of all the durations, with no pauses longer than 1.7 s between gait cycles [17]. Allowable 1.7 s pause between gait cycles was conservatively selected based on the average plus standard deviation stride time duration observed in frail participants [17]. All the sensor-based gait performance outcome measures are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Sensor-based outcome measures

For each continuous walking bout, the raw vertical acceleration signal extracted from the PAMSys sensor was filtered using a second order Butterworth filter (cut-off frequency of 2.5 Hz [44]), and the peaks of the filtered acceleration signal were detected using a peak-detection algorithm. The time-interval between two consecutive peaks was defined as the step-time, and the time-interval between alternate peaks was defined as the stride-time.

Gait variability

We defined gait variability as the stride-to-stride fluctuation in gait cycles, which has been associated with high risk of fall and cognitive impairments in elders [6, 45,46,47]. Gait variability reflects inconsistency in physiological systems that regulate walking, including neuromuscular, reflexive postural control, and cardiovascular systems [48]. We used two methods to assess gait variability: 1) step- and stride-time variability using time-domain; and 2) power spectral density (PSD) using frequency-domain analysis [49, 50]. Step- or stride-time variability was calculated as the coefficient of variation of the series of step- or stride-times for each continuous walking bout. For PSD analysis, the power spectrum of the acceleration data was calculated using Welch’s averaged modified periodogram method [38], to represent the frequency components of the acceleration signal [51]. We used a window size of 512 samples and an FFT length of 2-times the next higher power of the window size [38]. An overlap of 50% was considered between the windows. The locomotion band between 0.5–3.0 Hz was analyzed [38]. PSD components were extracted from the raw acceleration signal, including maximum PSD peak, PSD width (full width at half maximum height), PSD slope (PSD width to the peak) and dominant walking frequency. A higher variability in walking was identified by a shorter and wider PSD peak.

Gait Asymmetry

When gait becomes less automatic due to sarcopenia and cognitive aging, left-right step coordination may require more effort, especially among frail individuals [17, 37, 52]. Further, studies showed that no strong association between gait variability and asymmetry exists, suggesting that asymmetry reflects an independent measure of gait impairments due to distinct pathological causes [17, 52]. Here, step asymmetry was obtained from the autocorrelation function of the vertical acceleration signal [17, 52], represented by a sequence of autocorrelation coefficients over increasing time lags.

$$ Asymmetr{y}_1=\frac{A{d}_1}{A{d}_2},\kern0.5em Asymmetr{y}_2=\frac{\mid A{d}_1-A{d}_2\mid }{\max \left(A{d}_1,A{d}_2\right)} $$

where Ad1 and Ad2 are the prominence of the first and the second peaks respectively after the central (zero lag) peak [53].

Gait irregularity

Results from supervised gait studies showed that irregularity measures can describe predictability of walking cycles, which can be influenced by both neurological and neuromuscular diseases [18, 54,55,56]. Further, within in-lab settings, it has been demonstrated that gait irregularity can differ between non-frail and pre-frail older adults [21]. We used Sample Entropy (SampEn) assessment defined as Eq. (2), where A was defined as the number of matches in the filtered acceleration signal length m + 1 (distance function smaller than tolerance : d[Xm + 1(i), Xm + 1(j)] < r) and B as the number of matches of length m: (d[Xm(i), Xm(j)] < r) [41, 57,58,59,60].

$$ SampEn=-\log \left(\frac{\left({\sum}_{i=1}^{N-m}{A}_i\right)}{\left({\sum}_{i=1}^{N-m}{B}_i\right)}\right)=- logA/\mathrm{B} $$

The time-delay of the signal was calculated using mutual information method for all the continuous walks [61], and the average time-delay of all the continuous walks was used to calculate the SamplEn for each volunteer. We used embedding dimension m = 3, and tolerance r = 0.2 times the standard deviation of the signal, which are commonly used to compute sample entropy of gait signal [41, 57,58,59,60].

Continuous walking quantitative measures

In addition to the above-mentioned features, we extracted the following parameters in each continuous walking event: maximum walking bout, maximum number of continuous steps, walking-bout variability (coefficient of variation in walking bouts duration within 48 h), and total duration of continuous walks. Of note, the parameters extracted here were only obtained for continuous walking events with no pause of 1.7 s or longer, as described above. Duration of non-continuous walk (total duration of 60s walking minus 60s continuous walking with no pause) was obtained as a percentage of total duration of walking from the PAMsys sensor.

Statistical analysis

Separate analysis of variance (ANOVA) models were performed to compare sociodemographic parameters between the three Fried frailty groups. To explore differences in gait performance parameters among frailty categories, univariate ANOVA models were used with each gait performance parameter as the dependent variable, and the Fried frailty categories (non-frail and pre-frail/ frail) as the independent variable. Subsequently, gait performance parameters were used in a single multivariable nominal logistic model to assess the association between frailty categories and DPA gait performance parameters. In this model we combined pre-frail and frail groups, due to the limited number of frail participants. The model was developed following these steps: 1) univariate nominal logistic model analysis of the gait performance parameters as independent variables was performed. Gait performance parameters with significant association with frailty were considered for subsequent steps; 2) collinearity between the various gait performance parameters was tested using the variance inflation factor (VIF) index. VIF value greater than 10 represented the presence of collinearity [62]; and 3) gait performance and demographic parameters were selected based on Akaike information criterion (AIC) values. Participants who exhibited no 20/30/40/50/60 s continuous walks were automatically categorized as frail in the respective model. All analyses were done using JMP (Version 11; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and statistical significance was concluded when p < 0.05.


Demographic and clinical measures

The study involved a total of 126 participants, among whom 44 were non-frail, 60 were pre-frail and 22 were frail according to the Fried frailty criteria [2]. Table 2 shows demographic and clinical characteristics. Pre-frail/frail participants were significantly older than non-frail participants, used assistive devices more frequently, had higher BMI, perceived tiredness, and fear of falling score (p < 0.05) and lower performance scores in ADL (p < 0.05).

Table 2 Demographic and clinical characteristics

Sensor-based daily physical activity assessment

Table 3 shows the sensor-based DPA parameters for 60s continuous walking with resulting p-values of one-way ANOVA test (Fig. 1, Table 3) and Cohen’s d effect sizes. Supplementary Table 1 (a-d) shows the sensor-based DPA parameters for 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s continuous walks with resulting p-values of one-way ANOVA tests respectively.

Table 3 Gait performance parameters for 60s continuous walks, one-way ANOVA results, and Cohen’s d effect sizes between non-frail(N) and pre-frail(P)/frail(F) groups
Fig. 1

Comparison of continuous gait performance parameters between non-frail(N) and pre-frail(P)/frail(F) groups (*p < 0.05)

Of note, among the total 126 participants, 4 non-frail (9.09%), 17 pre-frail (28.33%), and 11 frail (50%) had no walking bout equal or longer than 60 s. These participants who did not have any 60s continuous walking bout (age: 81.59 ± 8.34) were significantly (p = 0.035) older than the participants who had continuous walks (age: 77.94 ± 8.43). Frailty status was also significantly (p = 0.001) different between the participants who did not have any continuous walking bouts (87.5% pre-frail/frail) compared to those who had continuous walks (57.45% pre-frail/frail). However, the BMI and gender were not significantly different between these groups (p > 0.079).

Among the 60s continuous gait parameters, frequency domain gait variability parameters and quantitative measures including maximum number of continuous steps, maximum walking bout and total continuous walking duration best discriminated non-frail and pre-frail/frail individuals. Step- and stride-time were significantly different between non-frail vs pre-frail/frail (p < 0.001). Further, among the frequency domain gait variability parameters, PSD amplitude, PSD slope, and the dominant frequency were significantly different between non-frail and pre-frail/frail groups (p < 0.05). However, step- and stride-time variabilities did not show statistical significance between the two groups (p > 0.1). Gait asymmetry, representing left and right step coordination, was not statistically significant between the two frailty groups (p > 0.1). Similarly, gait irregularity, measuring predictability of walking cycles, displayed an increasing trend towards pre-frailty/frailty; but the observed between-group differences were not significant (p > 0.1). All the continuous walk quantitative measures showed differences between the two groups, and most of these differences were statistically significant between the two groups (p < 0.05).

Frailty prediction using gait performance parameters

A multinomial logistic regression model was developed using gait performance parameters extracted from DPA along with age and BMI to predict frailty. A step-wise logistic model was developed with frailty groups as the dependent variable (non-frail vs. pre-frail/frail), for which, age (years), BMI (kg/m2), stride-time variability (%), dominant frequency (Hz), and maximum number of continuous steps were selected as independent variables (Table 4). The logistic regression model developed with these features was able to predict pre-frail/frail category with an improved receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under curve (AUC) of 0.84 compared to age (ROC AUC: 0.71) and total number of steps for 48 h (ROC AUC: 0.77, Table 5). The ROC curves are shown in Fig. 2.

Table 4 Parameter estimates for logistic regression models developed with different parameters
Table 5 Logistic model performance comparison of different parameters for 80% specificity
Fig. 2

Logistic regression model ROC curves for age, total number of steps, and gait performance parameters

Results of logistic regression models developed with gait performance parameters extracted from 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s continuous walks, age, and BMI to predict pre-frail/frail category for the different continuous walking lengths are shown in supplementary Table 2. The corresponding ROC curves in comparison with the 60s ROC curve are presented in supplementary Figure 1. Of note, we observed that among the five different durations (20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s), gait performance parameters extracted from 60s continuous walks provided the best frailty assessment results (supplementary Table 2 and supplementary Figure 1).


As hypothesized, several sensor-based gait performance parameters significantly discriminated between non-frail and pre-frail/frail groups, even when adjusted with age. In our previous studies the total number of steps and walking duration could not significantly discriminate pre-frail participants from non-frail when adjusted with age [17]. This improvement in frailty assessment occurred due to utilization of the novel concept of continuous walking for obtaining both qualitative and quantitative gait performance parameters.

Continuous walks

The ability to walk longer distances is instrumental for humans to perform various activities of daily living and lead an independent life. Walking requires complex mechanisms within the human sensory motor system to provide the necessary timing, coordination, and balance such that the interplay between the center of mass and the base of support are regulated in a repetitive manner [57, 63]. Previous studies that explored the gait characteristics of non-disabled adults for 2 weeks to define walking duration, found that 81% of all walking bouts lasted about 60 s [35, 36]. Also to assess the effect of continuous walk duration in pre-frailty/frailty assessment, we analyzed gait performance parameters extracted from 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s continuous walking bouts and observed that 60s continuous walks provided the best pre-frailty/frailty assessment results compared to other continuous walk durations. Previous studies also showed that accelerometer-derived gait performance measures based on daily activities could improve fall risk evaluation in older adults, when 60-s continuous walking periods were implemented compared to overall number of steps [36]. Similarly, in the current study, 60 s continuous walking with no pauses resulted in better discrimination between the frailty groups (p < 0.05), when compared with continuous walks with shorter duration and walks that included pauses.

Advantages of qualitative gait parameters

In addition to previously reported quantitative gait parameters (number of steps, mean walking bout duration, and longest walking bout duration) [17], here we extracted qualitative gait performance parameters (gait variability, asymmetry, and irregularity). Specifically, gait variability represented a promising measure for differentiating gait deficits among the three frailty categories. Gait variability, defined as the stride-to-stride fluctuation in walking cycles, has been previously associated with high risk of fall and cognitive impairments in elders [6, 45,46,47, 64]. Gait variability reflects inconsistency in physiological systems that regulate walking, including neuromuscular, reflexive postural control, and cardiovascular systems. We used two methods to assess gait variability: step/stride time variability using time-domain and power spectral density (PSD) using frequency-domain analyses. We observed that the frequency-domain parameters were significantly different between frailty groups, while time-domain parameters were not. Owing to the low sampling frequency in this study, some of the information content may be lost due to filtering for peak detection [65]. Hence, the PSD analysis performed on the entire raw acceleration signal may provide a more efficient tool for assessing gait variability for low sampling frequency motion sensor data.

Additionally, gait asymmetry and irregularity were also investigated here, as parameters that represent gait deficits independent of gait variability. Gait asymmetry, representing left-right step coordination, has been used as a metric to observe walking patterns in older individuals. Cognitive aging and sarcopenia render gait to be less automatic and left-right symmetry co-ordination is expected to require additional effort, especially in frail individuals [37]. Although gait asymmetry showed a decreasing trend from non-frail to pre-frail and frail samples, differences were not significant (Table 3). Since loss in step-coordination may also happen due to hip, knee, or ankle impairments [66], these confounding variables can mask the effect of frailty. Further, gait irregularity, representing the predictability of walking cycles, can be influenced by both neurological and neuromuscular diseases [18, 54,55,56]. Previous studies have used sample entropy to obtain gait predictability or repeatability to investigate differences in the relationship between executive function, and gait variability and stability during single and dual-task walking in persons with and without dementia [55]. We computed gait irregularity using the sample entropy method and observed an increase in irregularity in pre-frail/frail population but there was no statistical significance seen between the groups (Table 3).


There are limitations to consider in the interpretation of these findings. The first limitation is the lack of longitudinal validation of the DPA index for direct prediction of frailty-related health complications. Accordingly, due to a cross-sectional design of the current study, no conclusion can be made regarding the accuracy of the proposed index compared to the Fried test, or other types of frailty measures. Second limitation is adherence to the wearable sensor equipment. Though the participants did not express any obvious discomfort while wearing the sensors, it is possible that a few of the participants forgot to wear them immediately after a shower. Third, our sample was predominantly women. Although we did not observe a gender specific difference in gait performance, the model developed here may have limited generalizability to a population with a more balanced gender composition. Fourth, we consider a continuous walk as one with 20/30/40/50/60 s or longer duration with no pauses. However, it is possible that this walk was purposeful with the individual walking to a certain destination or that this walk was a random stroll with no specific purpose. These possibilities could potentially bias the quality of walking, but in our data we did not have the required information to categorize continuous walks as purposeful or random. Finally, not all participants, especially pre-frail and frail ones, had continuous walks during the 48 h of data collection, causing a reduced sample size for the pre-frail/frail group. To overcome this limitation, we combined pre-frail and frail participants and all the participants who did not exhibit continuous walking were automatically categorized as pre-frail/frail while developing the logistic model. Since detecting the onset of frailty at the pre-frail stage is most crucial in recovering health status [67], our findings suggested a promising method for pre-frailty identification using DPA data.

Summary and conclusion

Using gait performance parameters extracted from 60s continuous walks within 48 h of daily monitoring, pre-frailty/frailty was identified with a sensitivity of 76.8% and specificity of 80% among elders. Findings suggest that these DPA-based 60s continuous walking parameters, including gait variability and the amount of continuous walking, may noticeably improve gait deficit assessment compared to previous in-clinic gait assessment methods. The proposed gait performance characterization based on sensor-based daily physical activity provides potential for being integrated into clinical care for in-home screening of frailty (much as a holter monitor is used) to provide information pertaining to an individual’s condition before hospital admission, or when frailty is suspected. This method is advantageous over its in-clinic counterpart as it is objective rather than subjective self-reported measures of physical activity, and is measured in real-world walking activities rather than an artificial clinical setting. Although Fried’s frailty criteria [2] provides an accurate frailty measure and we observed strong association with this gold standard, the DPA frailty index should be further validated within longitudinal settings for predicting adverse health outcomes among older adults. Nevertheless, our proposed technique eliminates the bias pertaining to self-reported measures, does not require the subject to commute to the clinic, and provides a continuous in-home assessment.

Healthcare research in wearable devices has been constantly growing in various areas like remote patient monitoring and healthcare [68,69,70,71,72], wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring [73,74,75,76], and ambient-assisted living tools for older adults [77]. For the older adults requiring continuous health monitoring, sensor-based wearables and remote monitoring will help eliminate the hassle of periodic commute to diagnostic centers, reduce the amount of recurring admissions to the hospital, and facilitate more efficient clinical visits with objective results [78].

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Barthel activity of daily living


Akaike information criteria


Analysis of variance


Area under the curve


Body mass index


Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale


Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment


Daily physical activity


Mini-mental state examination


Power spectral density


Receiver operating characteristic


Sample entropy


Standard deviation


Variance inflation factor


World health organization


  1. 1.

    Mohler MJ, Fain MJ, Wertheimer AM, Najafi B, Nikolich-Žugich J. The frailty syndrome: clinical measurements and basic underpinnings in humans and animals. Exp Gerontol. 2014;54:6–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–57.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Evans WJ, Paolisso G, Abbatecola AM, Corsonello A, Bustacchini S, Strollo F, et al. Frailty and muscle metabolism dysregulation in the elderly. Biogerontology. 2010;11(5):527–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    van Kan GA, Rolland Y, Houles M, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Soto M, Vellas B. The assessment of frailty in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2010;26:275–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Abellan Van Kan G, Rolland Y, Bergman H, Morley JE, Kritchevsky SB, Vellas B. The I.A.N.A. task force on frailty assessment of older people in clinical practice. J Nutr Heal Aging. 2008;12(1):29–37.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hausdorff JM, Edelberg HK, Mitchell SL, Goldberger AL, Wei JY. Increased gait unsteadiness in community-dwelling elderly failers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(3):278–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Lipsitz LA. Dynamics of stability: the physiologic basis of functional health and frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002;57(3):B115–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Grabiner PC, Biswas ST, Grabiner MD. Age-related changes in spatial and temporal gait variables. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(1):31–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM, Salive ME, Wallace RB. Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. N Engl J Med. 1995;332(9):556–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Visser M, Deeg DJH, Lips P. Longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. Low vitamin D and high parathyroid hormone levels as determinants of loss of muscle strength and muscle mass (sarcopenia): the longitudinal aging study Amsterdam. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(12):5766–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Martinikorena I, Martínez-Ramírez A, Gómez M, Lecumberri P, Casas-Herrero A, Cadore EL, et al. Gait variability related to muscle quality and muscle power output in frail nonagenarian older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17(2):162–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kosse NM, Vuillerme N, Hortobágyi T, Lamoth CJ. Multiple gait parameters derived from iPod accelerometry predict age-related gait changes. Gait Posture. 2016;46:112–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Rockwood K, Stadnyk K, MacKnight C, McDowell I, Hébert R, Hogan DB. A brief clinical instrument to classify frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 1999;353(9148):205–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mitnitski AB, Graham JE, Mogilner AJ, Rockwood K. Frailty, fitness and late-life mortality in relation to chronological and biological age. BMC Geriatr. 2002;2:1–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jones DM, Song X, Rockwood K. Operationalizing a frailty index from a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(11):1929–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Paw MJMCA, De Groot LCPGM, Van Gend SV, Schoterman MHC, Schouten EG, Schroll M, et al. Inactivity and weight loss: effective criteria to identify frailty. J Nutr Heal Aging. 2003;7(1):55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Schwenk M, Mohler J, Wendel C, D’Huyvetter K, Fain M, Taylor-Piliae R, et al. Wearable sensor-based in-home assessment of gait, balance, and physical activity for discrimination of frailty status: baseline results of the Arizona frailty cohort study. Gerontology. 2015;61(3):258–67.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lamoth CJ, van Deudekom FJ, van Campen JP, Appels BA, de Vries OJ, Pijnappels M. Gait stability and variability measures show effects of impaired cognition and dual tasking in frail people. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8(1):2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Menz HB, Lord SR, Fitzpatrick RC. Acceleration patterns of the head and pelvis when walking on level and irregular surfaces. Gait Posture. 2003;18(1):35–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lindemann U, Najafi B, Zijlstra W, Hauer K, Muche R, Becker C, et al. Distance to achieve steady state walking speed in frail elderly persons. Gait Posture. 2008;27(1):91–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Zhong R, Rau P-LP, Yan X. Application of smart bracelet to monitor frailty-related gait parameters of older Chinese adults: a preliminary study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018;18(9):1366–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Martínez-Ramírez A, Martinikorena I, Gómez M, Lecumberri P, Millor N, Rodríguez-Mañas L, et al. Frailty assessment based on trunk kinematic parameters during walking. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:48.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. &quot;mini-mental state&quot;. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fieo RA, Mortensen EL, Rantanen T, Avlund K, Fieo R. Improving a measure of mobility-related fatigue (the mobility-tiredness scale) by establishing Item intensity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(3):429–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Orme JG, Reis J, Herz EJ. Factorial and discriminant validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. J Clin Psychol. 1986;42(1):28–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Yardley L, Beyer N, Hauer K, Kempen G, Piot-Ziegler C, Todd C. Development and initial validation of the falls efficacy scale-international (FES-I). Age Ageing. 2005;34(6):614–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Najafi B, Aminian K, Paraschiv-Ionescu A, Loew F, Bula CJ, Robert P. Ambulatory system for human motion analysis using a kinematic sensor: monitoring of daily physical activity in the elderly. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003;50(6):711–23.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Najafi B, Aminian K, Loew F, Blanc Y, Robert PA. Measurement of stand-sit and sit-stand transitions using a miniature gyroscope and its application in fall risk evaluation in the elderly. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2002;49(8):843–51.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Najafi B, Armstrong DG, Mohler J. Novel wearable Technology for Assessing Spontaneous Daily Physical Activity and Risk of falling in older adults with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(5):1147–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ismail AR, Asfour SS. Discrete wavelet transform: a tool in smoothing kinematic data. J Biomech. 1999;32(3):317–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Wachowiak MP, Rash GS, Quesada PM, Desoky AH. Wavelet-based noise removal for biomechanical signals: a comparative study. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2000;47(3):360–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Sekine M, Tamura T, Ogawa M, Togawa T, Fukui Y. Classification of acceleration waveform in a continuous walking record. In: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE); 2002. p. 1523–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Orendurff MS. How humans walk: bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(7):1077–90.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Weiss A, Brozgol M, Dorfman M, Herman T, Shema S, Giladi N, et al. Does the evaluation of gait quality during daily life provide insight into fall risk? A novel approach using 3-day accelerometer recordings. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013;27(8):742–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Yogev G, Plotnik M, Peretz C, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM. Gait asymmetry in patients with Parkinson’s disease and elderly fallers: when does the bilateral coordination of gait require attention? Exp Brain Res. 2007;177(3):336–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Weiss A, Sharifi S, Plotnik M, van Vugt JPP, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM. Toward automated, at-home assessment of mobility among patients with Parkinson disease, using a body-worn accelerometer. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011;25(9):810–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lipsitz LA, Goldberger AL. Loss of “complexity” and aging. Potential applications of fractals and chaos theory to senescence. JAMA. 1992;267(13):1806–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Moe-Nilssen R, Helbostad JL. Estimation of gait cycle characteristics by trunk accelerometry. J Biomech. 2004;37(1):121–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Yentes JM, Hunt N, Schmid KK, Kaipust JP, McGrath D, Stergiou N. The appropriate use of approximate entropy and sample entropy with short data sets. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41(2):349–65.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Richman JS, Lake DE, Moorman JR. Sample Entropy. In: Methods in enzymology; 2004. p. 172–84.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Richman JS, Moorman JR. Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am J Physiol Circ Physiol. 2000;278(6):H2039–49.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    John D, Miller R, Kozey-Keadle S, Caldwell G, Freedson P. Biomechanical examination of the ‘plateau phenomenon’ in ActiGraph vertical activity counts. Physiol Meas. 2012;33(2):219.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hausdorff JM, Rios DA, Edelberg HK. Gait variability and fall risk in community-living older adults: a 1-year prospective study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(8):1050–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sheridan PL, Solomont J, Kowall N, Hausdorff JM. Influence of executive function on Locomotor function: divided attention increases gait variability in Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(11):1633–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Verghese J, Holtzer R, Lipton RB, Wang C. Mobility stress test approach to predicting frailty, disability, and mortality in high-functioning older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(10):1901–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Hausdorff JM. Gait dynamics, fractals and falls: finding meaning in the stride-to-stride fluctuations of human walking. Hum Mov Sci. 2007;26(4):555–89.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Toosizadeh N, Lei H, Schwenk M, Sherman SJ, Sternberg E, Mohler J, et al. Does integrative medicine enhance balance in aging adults? Proof of concept for the benefit of Electroacupuncture therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Gerontology. 2015;61(1):3–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Lei H, Toosizadeh N, Schwenk M, Sherman S, Karp S, Sternberg E, et al. A Pilot Clinical Trial to Objectively Assess the Efficacy of Electroacupuncture on Gait in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease Using Body Worn Sensors. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155613.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Petre Stoica & Randolph L. Moses. Spectral analysis of signals | Pearson. Pearson; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Toosizadeh N, Mohler J, Najafi B. Assessing upper extremity motion: an innovative method to identify frailty. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(6):1181–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Palshikar GK. Simple Algorithms for Peak Detection in Time-Series Simple Algorithms for Peak Detection in Time-Series. Design. (July); 2002. p. 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Liao F, Wang J, He P. Multi-resolution entropy analysis of gait symmetry in neurological degenerative diseases and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30(3):299–310.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    IJmker T, Lamoth CJC. Gait and cognition: the relationship between gait stability and variability with executive function in persons with and without dementia. Gait Posture. 2012;35(1):126–30.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Riva F, Toebes MJP, Pijnappels M, Stagni R, van Dieën JH. Estimating fall risk with inertial sensors using gait stability measures that do not require step detection. Gait Posture. 2013;38(2):170–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Orter S, Ravi DK, Singh NB, Vogl F, Taylor WR, König IN. A method to concatenate multiple short time series for evaluating dynamic behaviour during walking. PLoS One. 2019;14(6):e0218594.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    McCamley JD, Denton W, Arnold A, Raffalt PC, Yentes JM. On the calculation of sample entropy using continuous and discrete human gait data. Entropy (Basel). 2018;20(10):764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Raffalt PC, McCamley J, Denton W, Yentes JM. Sampling frequency influences sample entropy of kinematics during walking. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2019;57(4):759–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Shi L, Duan F, Yang Y, Sun Z. The Effect of Treadmill Walking on Gait and Upper Trunk through Linear and Nonlinear Analysis Methods. Sensors (Basel). 2019;19(9):E2204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Albers DJ, Hripcsak G. Estimation of time-delayed mutual information and bias for irregularly and sparsely sampled time-series. Chaos Solitons Fractals. 2012;45(6):853–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    O’brien RM. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Hof AL. The ‘extrapolated center of mass’ concept suggests a simple control of balance in walking. Hum Mov Sci. 2008;27(1):112–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Toosizadeh N, Mohler J, Lei H, Parvaneh S, Sherman S, Najafi B. Motor Performance Assessment in Parkinson’s Disease: Association between Objective In-Clinic, Objective In-Home, and Subjective/Semi-Objective Measures. Maetzler W, editor. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124763.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Proakis JG, Manolakis DG. Digital signal processing: Principles, algorithms, and applications; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Casartelli NC, Item-Glatthorn JF, Bizzini M, Leunig M, Maffiuletti NA. Differences in gait characteristics between total hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasty patients: a six-month postoperative comparison. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:176.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Gill TM, Gahbauer EA, Allore HG, Han L. Transitions between frailty states among community-living older persons. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(4):418.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Suh M, Chen C-A, Woodbridge J, Tu MK, Kim JI, Nahapetian A, et al. A remote patient monitoring system for congestive heart failure. J Med Syst. 2011;35(5):1165–79.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Youm S, Lee G, Park S, Zhu W. Development of remote healthcare system for measuring and promoting healthy lifestyle. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(3):2828–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Malhi K, Mukhopadhyay SC, Schnepper J, Haefke M, Ewald H. A Zigbee-based wearable physiological parameters monitoring system. IEEE Sensors J. 2012;12(3):423–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Yamada I, Lopez G. Wearable sensing systems for healthcare monitoring. In: Digest of Technical Papers - Symposium on VLSI Technology (VLSIT). IEEE; 2012. p. 5–10.

  72. 72.

    Custodio V, Herrera F, López G, Moreno J, Custodio V, Herrera FJ, et al. A review on architectures and communications technologies for wearable health-monitoring systems. Sensors. 2012;12(10):13907–46.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Pantelopoulos A, Bourbakis NG. A Survey on Wearable Sensor-Based Systems for Health Monitoring and Prognosis. Appl Rev. 2010;40(1):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Alemdar H, Ersoy C. Wireless sensor networks for healthcare: a survey. Comput Netw. 2010;54(15):2688–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Baig MM, Gholamhosseini H. Smart health monitoring systems: an overview of design and modeling. J Med Syst. 2013;37(2):9898.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Chuan Yen T, Mohler J, Dohm M, Laksari K, Najafi B, Toosizadeh N. The effect of pain relief on daily physical activity: in-home objective physical activity assessment in chronic low Back pain patients after paravertebral spinal block. Sensors. 2018;18(9):3048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Rashidi P, Mihailidis A. A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for older adults. IEEE J Biomed Heal Informatics. 2013;17(3):579–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Scanaill CN, Carew S, Barralon P, Noury N, Lyons D, Lyons GM. A review of approaches to mobility Telemonitoring of the elderly in their living environment. Ann Biomed Eng. 2006;34(4):547–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the students of University of Arizona and Arizona Frailty Cohort coordination staff for volunteer recruitment and data collection.


This study was supported in part by award No. 2R42AG032748 from the National Institute on Aging. Sponsors had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information




DPK: data analysis, interpretation of findings, statistical analysis, manuscript writing and critical review of manuscript. NT: concept, study design, subject recruitment, study management, data analysis and interpretation, statistical analysis, manuscript writing and editing, critical review of manuscript and approval of final manuscript. JM: subject recruitment, study management, study design, interpretation of findings, critical review of manuscript and approval of final manuscript. HE: interpretation of findings, critical review of manuscript, comments and approval of final manuscript. CM: data analysis and interpretation. KL: concept, study design, data analysis and interpretation, statistical analysis, manuscript writing and editing, critical review of manuscript and approval of final manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nima Toosizadeh.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the University of Arizona and Banner Sun Health Research Institute’s Institutional Review Boards. Before participation, written informed consent according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki was obtained from all subjects.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1

(a-d). Gait performance parameters for 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s continuous walks, one-way ANOVA results, and Cohen's d effect sizes between non-frail(N) and pre-frail(P)/frail(F) groups; Supplementary Table 2. Logistic model performance comparison using gait performance parameters between different duration of continuous walks for 80% specificity.

Additional file 2: Supplementary Figure 1.

Logistic regression model receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for different continuous walk criteria (20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 second cutoff). Results are presented for predictions using gait performance models (gait performance parameters, age, and BMI).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pradeep Kumar, D., Toosizadeh, N., Mohler, J. et al. Sensor-based characterization of daily walking: a new paradigm in pre-frailty/frailty assessment. BMC Geriatr 20, 164 (2020).

Download citation


  • Frailty
  • Daily physical activity
  • Wearable sensors
  • Continuous walking
  • Performance parameters