Abstract
Freezing of gait (FoG) prediction is clinically meaningful only when warnings arrive sufficiently early for subsequent action. Therefore, we adopt a Freezing Prediction Horizon (FPH) evaluation that reports prediction performance as a function of the warning horizon before onset, making the lead-time versus reliability trade-off explicit. Within this protocol, we develop a Transformer-based predictor with a progressive self-paced learning strategy and evaluate it on a 55-patient clinical dataset and two public datasets. The horizon–performance curves show that Macro-F1 remains stable up to approximately 2.5 seconds before FoG onset in our dataset, after which a gradual decline is observed. This horizon-based characterization replaces single, fixed ahead-of-onset windows with a continuous method that summarizes achievable advanced time at specified accuracy levels. In this way, it offers a principled basis for setting targets in real-time implementationslinking algorithmic early-warning capacity to the lead times that practical systems may require-while remaining compatible with conventional metrics. By centering evaluation on FPH, this study clarifies how far in advance FoG can be predicted with confidence, and it positions horizon-based assessment as a reproducible complement to standard reporting for future work on deployable FoG prediction. Ultimately, quantifying advance warning is a prerequisite for prevention-oriented use, by indicating whether sufficient time can be reserved for cueing prior to onset.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported in part by the NUS-NNI 2016 Grant R263000C36133 and in part by the National Medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/CISSP/2014/2015).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (CIRB Ref: 2016/2743; approved on 28 September 2016). Data collection was conducted at two clinics of the National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore, from September 2016 to August 2017.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
* This work was supported in part by NUS-NNI 2016 Grant R263000C36133 and in part by NMRC/CISSP/2014/2015.
Data Availability
The clinical dataset analyzed in this study contains human participant data and is not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. De-identified data may be made available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request and subject to institutional approval and a data use agreement. The public datasets used in this study are available from their respective sources.
