Clinical gait analysis (CGA) has historically relied on clinician experience and judgment, leading to modest, stagnant, and unpredictable outcomes. This paper introduces Evidence-Based Gait Analysis Interpretation Tools (EB-GAIT), a novel framework leveraging machine learning to support treatment decisions. The core of EB-GAIT consists of two key components: (1) treatment recommendation models, which are propensity models that estimate the probability of specific surgeries based on historical standard-of-practice (SOP), and (2) treatment outcome models, which predict changes in patient characteristics following treatment or natural history.

Using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), we developed and validated treatment recommendation models for 12 common surgeries that account for more than 95% of the surgery recorded in our CGA center’s database. These models demonstrated high balanced accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. We used Shapley values for the models to enhances interpretability and allow clinicians and patients to understand the factors driving treatment recommendations. We also developed treatment outcome models for over 20 common outcome measures. These models were found to be unbiased, with reliable prediction intervals and accuracy comparable to experimental measurement error.

We illustrated the application of EB-GAIT through a case study, showcasing its utility in providing treatment recommendations and outcome predictions. We then use simulations to show that combining propensity and outcome models offers the possibility to improve outcomes for treated limbs, maintain outcomes for untreated limbs, and reduce the number of surgeries performed. The EB-GAIT approach addresses the limitations of the conventional CGA interpretation method, offering a more structured and data-driven decision-making process.

EB-GAIT is not intended to replace clinical judgment but to supplement it, providing clinicians with a second opinion grounded in historical data and predictive analytics. While the models perform well, their effectiveness is constrained by historical variability in treatment decisions and the inherent complexity of patient outcomes. Future efforts should focus on refining model inputs, incorporating surgical details, and pooling data from multiple centers to improve generalizability.

EB-GAIT represents a significant step toward precision medicine in CGA, offering a promising tool to enhance treatment outcomes and patient care.

Plain Language Summary Clinical gait analysis (CGA) helps doctors understand walking problems in patients with movement disorders, like cerebral palsy. Traditionally, treatment decisions have relied on doctors’ experience and judgment, which can lead to inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes. To address this, we developed Evidence-Based Gait Analysis Interpretation Tools (EB-GAIT), a new method that uses advanced computer models to guide treatment decisions.

What is EB-GAIT?EB-GAIT combines two types of models: (1) Treatment Recommendation Models that predict the likelihood of specific surgeries based on historical treatment patterns at our center, and (2) Outcome Prediction Models that estimate how patients’ orthopedic deformity, walking pattern, and mobility might improve after surgery or without treatment. Using a powerful statistical tool called Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), we built models for 12 common surgeries and over 20 outcome measures. These models are accurate, unbiased, and provide reliable predictions.

How Does EB-GAIT Help?EB-GAIT helps doctors understand which treatments are likely to work best for each patient. The models explain why a treatment is recommended, making it easier for doctors and patients to understand. Simulations show that combining treatment recommendations and outcome predictions can lead to better results for patients, fewer unnecessary surgeries, and more consistent care.

A Case Study We use a case study throughout the paper to demonstrate EB-GAIT using a real patient example. The models accurately predicted the outcomes of surgery, showing how EB-GAIT can support doctors in making evidence-based decisions.

The Future of EB-GAIT While EB-GAIT is a powerful tool, it doesn’t replace doctors’ expertise. Instead, it provides additional information to help doctors and patients make informed choices. In the future, we plan to improve the models by adding more details about surgeries and combining data from multiple centers.

We view EB-GAIT as a big step forward in using data and technology to improve care for patients with walking problems. By making treatment decisions more precise and personalized, EB-GAIT aims to help patients move better and live fuller lives.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

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:

This study was reviewed and authorized by the University of Minnesota institutional review board review (STUDY00012420). All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent for use of medical records was obtained at the time of service from all participants or their legal guardian. An option to rescind this permission is offered to patients at every visit to our center.

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

Data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors