Silhouette-Based Gaitomics for Frailty Assessment in Older Adults
Authors: Laura McDaniel, Ryan Roemmich, Crystal Szczesny, Peter Abadir, Rama Chellappa, Basudha Pal
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Center for Movement Studies, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Walking offers a window into physical function that may support interpretable video-based frailty assessment. We developed silhouette-based "gaitomics" to connect frailty predictions with measurable patterns of body configuration and movement. In 66 older adults assessed using the Fried Frailty Phenotype, standardized silhouettes and gait energy images yielded 90 descriptors of shape, temporal variation, motion, and texture. Minimum redundancy maximum relevance selection using the mutual information difference criterion prioritized informative features while limiting redundancy. Each classifier was evaluated using nested stratified cross-validation with five outer and three inner folds at the participant level, with feature ranking and feature-count selection confined to training partitions. Shapley additive explanations examined contributions to held-out predictions. Bilateral silhouette difference led the aggregate feature-selection rankings for three-class classification and both comparisons involving frail participants. Attribution profiles differed across tasks, with texture and consecutive-frame silhouette differences prominent in three-class classification. Among classifier-specific evaluations, CatBoost achieved the highest mean three-class micro-AUC of 0.647 \pm 0.085. Leading pairwise mean micro-AUCs were 0.833 \pm 0.249 for frail versus nonfrail, 0.765 \pm 0.168 for frail versus prefrail, and 0.554 \pm 0.129 for prefrail versus nonfrail classification. These findings connect model predictions to explicit gait characteristics while revealing task-dependent feature priorities and limited separation of prefrail and nonfrail participants. The framework provides an interpretable basis for further investigation, with larger independent studies needed to establish reliability and clinical relevance.
Figures & tables
Characteristic
Nonfrail
Prefrail
Frail
Total
( n=25 )
( n=24 )
( n=17 )
( n=66 )
Age, years
77.4
79.7
79.8
78.8
Sex, n (%)
Female
11 (44.0)
13 (54.2)
15 (88.2)
39 (59.1)
Male
14 (56.0)
11 (45.8)
2 (11.8)
27 (40.9)
Race, n (%)
Table 1: Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort, stratified by Fried frailty status. Values are mean or n (%).
Feature family
Source
Count
Description
Shape
ROI sequence
49
These first-order features describe contour geometry and its sequence-level variation using area, perimeter, solidity, compactness, aspect ratio, and Hu moments.
Temporal
ROI sequence
14
These first-order features describe image-derived center-of-mass position and motion, foreground-area variability, consecutive-mask overlap, sequence-derived velocity, and bilateral silhouette differences.
Spatiotemporal
ROI sequence
9
These features describe consecutive-frame change, spatial gradients of that change, and optical flow. Three are first-order and six are second-order.
GEI first-order
GEI
6
These first-order features summarize intensity mean, standard deviation, skewness, excess kurtosis, energy, and entropy.
GEI texture
GEI
12
These second-order features summarize GLCM contrast, dissimilarity, homogeneity, energy, ASM, and correlation using their means and standard deviations across orientations.
Total
90
The candidate catalogue combines direct silhouette measurements with derived spatial and motion descriptors.
Table 2: Gaitomic feature families extracted from the standardized ROI sequence and GEI. The catalogue contains 72 first-order and 18 second-order descriptors under the study’s operational taxonomy. ROI denotes the region of interest. GEI denotes the gait energy image. GLCM denotes the gray-level co-occurrence matrix. ASM denotes angular second moment. Complete feature identifiers are provided in the Supplementary Material.
Rank
Feature
Family
Order
Measure
1
temp_sym_absdiff_mean
Temporal
First-order
Mean absolute bilateral silhouette difference
2
shape_peri_max
Shape
First-order
Maximum contour perimeter over frames
3
temp_area_std
Temporal
First-order
Temporal standard deviation of foreground-pixel area
4
st_flow_fx_mean
Spatiotemporal
Second-order
Mean signed horizontal optical-flow component
5
shape_solidity_mean
Shape
First-order
Temporal mean of contour solidity
6
st_flow_vert_ratio_mean
Spatiotemporal
Second-order
Mean vertical-to-horizontal optical-flow ratio
Table 3: Ten highest-priority features for three-class frailty classification among 66 participants. Features are ordered by their mean position across five mRMR-MID rankings, each computed using only the corresponding outer-training participants and labels. Ties are resolved by feature name. These aggregate rankings summarize feature priority across training partitions and do not represent a single input set shared by all fitted models. Feature-construction categories follow the Methods.
Rank
Feature
Family
Order
Measure
1
temp_sym_absdiff_mean
Temporal
First-order
Mean absolute bilateral silhouette difference
2
st_fdt_sobel_mean
Spatiotemporal
Second-order
Mean spatial Sobel-gradient magnitude of consecutive-frame silhouette differences
3
shape_peri_max
Shape
First-order
Maximum contour perimeter over frames
4
st_flow_fx_mean
Spatiotemporal
Second-order
Mean signed horizontal optical-flow component
5
shape_aspect_std
Shape
First-order
Temporal standard deviation of silhouette aspect ratio
6
temp_area_cv
Temporal
First-order
Relative temporal variation in foreground-pixel area
Table 4: Ten highest-priority features for frail versus nonfrail classification among 42 participants. Features are ordered by mean position across five mRMR-MID rankings computed using only the corresponding outer-training participants and labels. Ties are resolved by feature name. The list summarizes training-partition rankings rather than a fixed input set used in every fold.
Rank
Feature
Family
Order
Measure
1
temp_sym_absdiff_mean
Temporal
First-order
Mean absolute bilateral silhouette difference
2
st_flow_fx_mean
Spatiotemporal
Second-order
Mean signed horizontal optical-flow component
3
gei_tex_ASM_mean
GEI texture
Second-order
GLCM angular second moment (mean across orientations)
4
gei_tex_energy_mean
GEI texture
Second-order
GLCM energy (mean across orientations)
5
shape_hu1_mean
Shape
First-order
Temporal mean of log-transformed Hu descriptor indexed 1
6
shape_peri_max
Shape
First-order
Maximum contour perimeter over frames
Table 5: Ten highest-priority features for frail versus prefrail classification among 41 participants. Features are ordered by mean position across five mRMR-MID rankings computed using only the corresponding outer-training participants and labels. Ties are resolved by feature name. GEI denotes gait energy image, GLCM denotes gray-level co-occurrence matrix, and ASM denotes angular second moment.
Rank
Feature
Family
Order
Measure
1
shape_area_max
Shape
First-order
Maximum contour-based silhouette area over frames
2
temp_area_std
Temporal
First-order
Temporal standard deviation of foreground-pixel area
3
shape_hu6_min
Shape
First-order
Minimum log-transformed Hu descriptor indexed 6 over frames
4
st_flow_vert_ratio_mean
Spatiotemporal
Second-order
Mean vertical-to-horizontal optical-flow ratio
5
shape_hu6_mean
Shape
First-order
Temporal mean of log-transformed Hu descriptor indexed 6
6
st_flow_fx_mean
Spatiotemporal
Second-order
Mean signed horizontal optical-flow component
Table 6: Ten highest-priority features for prefrail versus nonfrail classification among 49 participants. Features are ordered by mean position across five mRMR-MID rankings computed using only the corresponding outer-training participants and labels. Ties are resolved by feature name. The list summarizes training-partition rankings rather than a fixed input set used in every fold.
Comparison
Rank
Model
K by outer fold
μ AUC
κ
3-class (F/PF/NF) ( n=66 )
1
CatBoost
10, 20, 40, 30, 10
0.647±0.085
0.265±0.117
2
Linear SVM
10, 10, 10, 10, 20
0.640±0.119
0.355±0.297
3
Random Forest
30, 10, 10, 60, 10
0.611±0.059
0.135±0.283
4
XGBoost
40, 10, 20, 50, 10
0.591±0.099
0.193±0.294
5
LightGBM
10, 10, 10, 10, 10
0.548±0.055
0.035±0.153
F vs NF ( n=42 )
1
Linear SVM
10, 80, 10, 10, 10
0.833±0.249
0.608±0.363
Table 7: Classifier-specific nested cross-validation using five outer and three inner stratified folds at the participant level. Within each classifier and outer fold, K maximized mean inner-validation μ AUC over K∈{10,20,…,90} , with ties resolved by smaller K . mRMR-MID was fitted on inner-training partitions for selection and refitted on the complete outer-training partition before final model fitting. The feature-count column lists K for outer folds one through five. Metrics are mean ± standard deviation across five held-out outer-test folds. Rows are ordered descriptively by mean outer-test μ AUC, with no additional distinction implied for equal displayed values. All classifiers were unweighted. F denotes frail, PF denotes prefrail, and NF denotes nonfrail. Cohen’s κ used quadratic weighting for three-class classification and no weighting for binary classification.
Figure 1: SHAP feature importance for the classifier-specific three-class CatBoost analysis. Inner-validation selection yielded 10, 20, 40, 30, and 10 features across outer folds one through five. The corresponding mean outer-test μ AUC was 0.647±0.085 . Bars show pooled mean absolute contributions from held-out outer-test participants explained using their corresponding outer-training models. The ten highest-importance features are displayed, while explanations retain each fold’s complete fitted input set. Larger values indicate greater average contribution magnitude and do not indicate contribution direction.
Figure 2: SHAP feature importance for the leading classifier-specific pairwise summaries. The upper panel shows frail versus nonfrail linear SVM, with outer-fold feature counts of 10, 80, 10, 10, and 10 and mean outer-test μ AUC 0.833±0.249 . The middle panel shows frail versus prefrail linear SVM, with feature counts of 10, 60, 10, 10, and 40 and μ AUC 0.765±0.168 . The lower panel shows prefrail versus nonfrail Random Forest, with feature counts of 40, 30, 80, 20, and 10 and μ AUC 0.554±0.129 . Bars show pooled mean absolute contributions from held-out outer-test participants. Each panel displays ten features, while explanations use each fold’s complete fitted input set. Panels have separate horizontal scales, and magnitudes should be interpreted within the corresponding model output scale.
Frequency
Feature
Measure
Comparisons
4/4
st_flow_fx_mean
Mean signed horizontal optical-flow component
Three-class, F vs NF, F vs PF, PF vs NF
3/4
shape_peri_max
Maximum contour perimeter over frames
Three-class, F vs NF, F vs PF
3/4
shape_solidity_mean
Temporal mean of contour solidity
Three-class, F vs NF, PF vs NF
3/4
st_fdt_sobel_mean
Mean spatial Sobel-gradient magnitude of consecutive-frame silhouette differences
Three-class, F vs NF, PF vs NF
3/4
st_flow_vert_ratio_mean
Mean vertical-to-horizontal optical-flow ratio
Three-class, F vs PF, PF vs NF
3/4
temp_sym_absdiff_mean
Mean absolute bilateral silhouette difference
Three-class, F vs NF, F vs PF
Table 8: Features appearing in the aggregate top-ten mRMR-MID lists of at least two tasks. Each task-specific list is based on mean feature position across five outer-training rankings. Frequency counts membership across the four task-specific lists and is not a fold-selection frequency. All ten recurrent features are shown. Alphabetical ordering within a frequency group does not imply an additional importance ranking. F denotes frail, PF denotes prefrail, and NF denotes nonfrail.
Frailty is a condition in aging medicine characterized by diminished physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to stressors. However, frailty assessment remains subjective, heterogeneous, and difficult to scale in clinical practice. Gait is a sensitive marker of biological aging, capturing multisystem decline before overt disability. Yet the application of modern computer vision to gait-based frailty assessment has been limited by small, imbalanced datasets and a lack of clinically representative benchmarks. In this work, we introduce a publicly available silhouette-based frailty gait dataset collected in a clinically realistic setting, spanning the full frailty spectrum and including older adults who use walking aids. Using this dataset, we evaluate how pretrained gait recognition models can be adapted for frailty classification under limited data conditions. We study both convolutional and hybrid attention-based architectures and show that predictive performance depends primarily on how pretrained representations are transferred rather than architectural complexity alone. Across models, selectively freezing low-level gait representations while allowing higher-level features to adapt yields more stable and generalizable performance than either full fine-tuning or rigid freezing. Conservative handling of class imbalance further improves training stability, and combining complementary learning objectives enhances discrimination between clinically adjacent frailty states. Interpretability analyses reveal consistent model attention to lower-limb and pelvic regions, aligning with established biomechanical correlates of frailty. Together, these findings establish gait-based representation learning as a scalable, non-invasive, and interpretable framework for frailty assessment and support the integration of modern biometric modeling approaches into aging research and clinical practice.
Laura McDaniel, Basudha Pal, Crystal Szczesny +5
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. · Department of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. +3
Gait is increasingly recognized as a vital sign, yet current approaches treat it as a symptom of specific pathologies rather than a systemic biomarker. We developed a gait foundation model for 3D skeletal motion from 3,414 deeply phenotyped adults, recorded via a depth camera during five motor tasks. Learned embeddings outperformed engineered features, predicting age (Pearson r = 0.69), BMI (r = 0.90), and visceral adipose tissue area (r = 0.82). Embeddings significantly predicted 1,980 of 3,210 phenotypic targets; after adjustment for age, BMI, VAT, and height, gait provided independent gains in all 18 body systems in males and 17 of 18 in females, and improved prediction of clinical diagnoses and medication use. Anatomical ablation revealed that legs dominated metabolic and frailty predictions while torso encoded sleep and lifestyle phenotypes. These findings establish gait as an independent multi-system biosignal, motivating translation to consumer-grade video and its integration as a scalable, passive vital sign.
Adam Gabet, Sarah Kohn, Guy Lutsker +11
Department of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. · Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. · Newton VR LTD., Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel +2
Frailty assessments are crucial to evaluate the risk of adverse events and the health and social care needs of older adults, yet their administration remains resource-intensive and typically relies on coarse clinical outcomes, such as task completion times, which may overlook biomechanical indicators of functional decline. To address this, we present a robotic framework that guides older adults through standardised frailty and fall-risk tests while capturing clinical scores and additional frailty-related metrics, offering a deeper insight into a user's condition. The system uses a Behaviour Tree architecture that coordinates perception, decision-making, interaction, and measurement modules. Using vision-based skeleton tracking, the robot evaluates established clinical tests, including the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG). The framework was co-designed with healthcare professionals and evaluated in situ during six months in a rehabilitation centre's research lab with N=81 older adults. Robot-derived measurements were compared against therapist assessments and clinical reference instruments, including a gait analysis walkway and an inertial measurement unit (IMU). Results showed excellent agreement for most test completion times and gait-related parameters (ICC>0.9). And, substantial agreement for the overall SPPB score comparing the robot and the therapist (k=0.67) and moderate agreement comparing the robot and the IMU (k=0.55). The findings highlight that social robots can provide reliable and objective frailty assessments in healthcare settings while enabling the collection of relevant mobility indicators beyond conventional outcomes.
Aniol Civit, Antonio Andriella, Alba Martínez +4
Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial, CSIC-UPC, Llorens i Artigas 4-6, 08028 Barcelona, Spain · Parc Sanitari Pere Virgili, Area of Intermediate Care, Barcelona, Spain · RE-FiT Barcelona Research Group, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Research and Parc Sanitari Pere Virgili, Barcelona, Spain +1