Back

Wearable tracking of walking and non-walking as progression markers in early Parkinson's disease

Ho, K. C.; Li, S.; Serrano Amenos, C.; Kowahl, N.; Rainaldi, E.; Chen, C.; Bloem, B. R.; Sanders, L. H.; Shih, L. C.; Siderowf, A.; Marks, W. J.; Kapur, R.; Evers, L. J. W.; Shin, S.

2025-08-21 neurology
10.1101/2025.08.19.25333986 medRxiv
Show abstract

IMPORTANCEWearable-based measures of walking (as proxy for physical activity) may quantify disease progression and modification thereof in early-stage Parkinsons disease (PD). OBJECTIVESEstablishing the validity of digital measures of walking and non-walking in PD. DESIGNRetrospective longitudinal analyses of data from cohorts within 3 larger studies, consisting of wearable sensor, demographic, and clinical data collected during 2017-2023, with 1-2 year follow up. SETTINGThree independent multicenter cohort studies. PARTICIPANTSPeople with PD, and age/sex matched non-PD cohort. EXPOSURESNone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESDigital measures test-retest reliability, analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients across consecutive monthly-aggregated data. Digital measures sensitivity: ability to detect within-participant changes, analyzed over 24 months using linear mixed-effect models, and analyzed as effect-size changes-from-baseline comparing 1- and 2-year longitudinal Cohens-d (mean and 95% CIs) vs conventional clinical endpoints. Analyses replicated in two independent PD cohorts (internal validation and external evaluation). Compared within-participant changes between PD and non-PD cohorts using linear mixed-effect model slopes. RESULTSWe analyzed 57 digital measures (51 individual, 6 composite) in a development cohort (N=171), selecting 32 (26 individual, 6 composite) for further study based on their sensitivity and test-retest reliability. During internal validation (N=101), 20 measures could detect statistically significant within-participant changes and 7 showed larger 2-year effect-size changes than conventional clinical measures; non-walking bout (NWB) duration (12.4% yearly change; 2-year Cohens-d 0.623 [95% CI: 0.461,0.811]) and 95th percentile of NWB duration (17.1% yearly change; 2-year Cohens-d, 0.623 [95% CI: 0.461,0.811]) performed best. Measures could detect significant and persisting changes from baseline at 10 months. During external evaluation (N=67), 15 measures could detect statistically significant within-participant changes and 12 showed larger 1-year effect-size changes than conventional clinical measures; 12 measures showed significantly greater change in people with PD than in matched non-PD individuals (N=171). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCEInternal validation and external evaluation of 32 digital measures that quantified walking and non-walking behaviors in patients with early-stage PD showed that they could have greater sensitivity to detect longitudinal changes than conventional measures, and that these changes were disease-specific (e.g., separate from aging), making them candidates for disease-specific progression markers. Key PointsO_ST_ABSQuestionC_ST_ABSCan wearable sensor-based digital measures of physical activity and mobility serve as markers of disease progression in early-stage Parkinsons disease (PD)? FindingsIn two independent longitudinal cohorts of people with PD, digital measures detected statistically-significant changes in walking and non-walking behaviors after 1 and 2 years of follow-up; additionally, a comparison between people with and without PD (from a third cohort) showed that these changes were disease-specific. Compared with MDS-UPDRS-based conventional metrics, measures of non-walking behavior showed greater effect size (such as mean non-walking bout duration, with an annual increase of 12.4% and a 2-year Cohens-d of 0.623). MeaningWearable sensor-based digital measures can detect and quantify disease-specific changes in walking and non-walking behaviors over time in people with early-stage PD.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.