Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of the balanced accuracies of the machine learning classifiers

From: Evaluation of walking activity and gait to identify physical and mental fatigue in neurodegenerative and immune disorders: preliminary insights from the IDEA-FAST feasibility study

Train-Test Split

PRO

Group

Mean Accuracy

Highest Accuracy

PF

MF

PF

MF

Intersubject CV method

Macros

All

50.69 ± 2%

49.70 ± 1%

52.98%

51.69%

Walking Volume

47.35 ± 1%

49.56 ± 0%

48.85%

49.95%

Non-walking Volume

49.12 ± 3%

49.62 ± 1%

50.71%

51.39%

Pattern

47.91 ± 1%

50.64 ± 1%

49.73%

51.72%

Vector Magnitude

52.73 ± 1%

49.99 ± 1%

54.47%

50.60%

Variability

49.29 ± 1%

51.10 ± 1%

50.02%

51.86%

Micros

All

46.62 ± 3%

48.36 ± 1%

50.09%

50.42%

Pace

43.62 ± 2%

49.11 ± 2%

45.53%

51.39%

Variability

47.40 ± 2%

47.37 ± 2%

49.85%

49.02%

Rhythm

47.58 ± 2%

48.50 ± 2%

49.83%

50.86%

Asymmetry

48.85 ± 1%

49.82 ± 1%

49.84%

51.81%

Postural Control

48.09 ± 2%

50.55 ± 1%

50.72%

51.89%

Intrasubject CV method

Macros

All

53.44 ± 1%

53.21 ± 1%

54.54%

54.53%

Micros

All

56.13 ± 0%

54.70 ± 1%

56.90%

55.74%

  1. Reports the mean ± SD of the balanced accuracies averaged across each fold and the maximal mean balanced accuracy given by a classifier. Bold denotes the 'best’ outcome for each PRO, feature group, and cross-validation approach. PRO Patient reported outcome, PF Physical fatigue, MF Mental fatigue