Analyzing Population-Level Trials as N-of-1 Trials: an Application to Gait

TL;DR

This study demonstrates how re-analyzing population-level gait data as N-of-1 trials reveals individual differences in response to fatigue and cognitive tasks, emphasizing personalized insights over aggregate effects.

Contribution

The paper introduces a method to reinterpret existing population studies as N-of-1 trials using Bayesian models, highlighting individual variability in gait analysis.

Findings

Individual gait responses to fatigue vary widely among participants.

Population-level effects may mask significant individual differences.

Re-analyzing data as N-of-1 trials uncovers nuanced, personalized effects.

Abstract

Studying individual causal effects of health interventions is of interest whenever intervention effects are heterogeneous between study participants. Conducting N-of-1 trials, which are single-person randomized controlled trials, is the gold standard for their analysis. In this study, we propose to re-analyze existing population-level studies as N-of-1 trials as an alternative, and we use gait as a use case for illustration. Gait data were collected from 16 young and healthy participants under fatigued and non-fatigued, as well as under single-task (only walking) and dual-task (walking while performing a cognitive task) conditions. We first computed standard population-level ANOVA models to evaluate differences in gait parameters (stride length and stride time) across conditions. Then, we estimated the effect of the interventions on gait parameters on the individual level through Bayesian linear mixed models, viewing each participant as their own trial, and compared the results. The results illustrated that while few overall population-level effects were visible, individual-level analyses showed nuanced differences between participants. Baseline values of the gait parameters varied largely among all participants, and the changes induced by fatigue and cognitive task performance were also highly heterogeneous, with some individuals showing effects in opposite direction. These differences between population-level and individual-level analyses were more pronounced for the fatigue intervention compared to the cognitive task intervention. Following our empirical analysis, we discuss re-analyzing population studies through the lens of N-of-1 trials more generally and highlight important considerations and requirements. Our work encourages future studies to investigate individual effects using population-level data.