Extended Data Fig. 6: Cross sectional predictions of the clinical scales.

a. Cross sectional prediction of Myogrip. Actual vs predicted plot of the Myogrip. Each point represents the actual vs predicted score for a patient’s visit. A leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (n = 21 subjects, 44 visits) and Gaussian process regression was used to find a mapping between the ethomic fingerprints from the natural movement behaviour of the DMD patients and the Myogrip. b-d. Cross-sectional predictions of the clinical scales. Comparison of the aggregate RMSE of the leave-one-subject-out cross-validated predictions (n = 17 ambulatory subjects, 37 visits) of the 6 MWD (b)using ethomic fingerprints vs other clinical scales. c and d are the corresponding plots for NSAA (n = 18 ambulatory subjects, 41 visits) and PUL (n = 21 subjects, 45 visits) respectively. e-g. Cross-sectional predictions using 6 MW data. Actual vs predicted plot from the cross-sectional prediction of the clinical scales using 6MW data. Each point represents the actual vs predicted score for a patient’s visit. A leave-one-subject-out cross-validation and Gaussian Process regression was used to find a mapping between the ethomic fingerprints from the 6MW motor behaviour of the DMD patients and the different clinical scales of 6MWD, NSAA and PUL (n = 17 ambulatory subjects, 37 visits).