## 3 Results  
We conducted a 10 m walk test on the study participants using the smart walker to study gait patterns and associated forces exerted on the walker's handlebars during ambulation. The results showed significant differences in participants' gait dynamics. Specifically, as the participants initiated heel contact with the ground during their stride, discernible changes in the forces applied to the walker's handlebars were observed. This phenomenon was particularly evident when the participants made contact with their right heel, which correspondingly led to an augmentation in the forces registered on the right side of the walker's legs. Simultaneously, a reciprocal reduction in force was documented on the opposite side of the walker as illustrated in Figure 7.  
Our analysis revealed that the inflection points in the force profiles corresponded to the instances of heel strikes during the participants' gait. This analysis allowed us to discern not only the number of heel strikes, but also the sequence in which they occurred. Evidently, the first heel strike typically originated from the right foot, marking the commencement of the gait cycle. The observation and quantification of these inflection points and heel strikes provided us with a precise and quantifiable measure of the number of steps taken by each participant during the 10 m walk test. Figure 7 shows the generated graphs in Pasco Capstone software for the sensor recording on the walker, which measured the forces exerted by the upper limbs on the handlebars of the walker during walking. The graphical data was exported to an MS Excel file for the extraction of gait parameters. Analysis of the data revealed that users with osteoporosis exerted more force on the walker for propulsion compared to healthy users, as seen in Figure 7. Specifically, in Figure 7b, people with osteoporosis put over 100 N of body weight on the walker, while in Figure 7a, people without osteoporosis placed less than 100 N of their body weight on the walker. Figure 6: A 55-year-old female volunteer from the osteoporosis group performing a walk test. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or F test was performed in order to compare the two participant groups in terms of gait parameters. The results of this analysis, as well as the participants' demographic characteristics, are shown in Table 2. The results of the F test showed that the two groups were significantly different for the following four variables:  
1. For average left step length, the \(p\)-value was 0.03, (\(p\)(x \(\leq\) F) = 0.01). The test statistic F was 0.350, which was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.3958: 2.5265]. S1/S2 = 0.59, was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.629: 1.589]. The 95% confidence interval of \(\sigma\)12/\(\sigma\)22 was: [0.138, 0.886]. 2. The \(p\)-value for time was found to be 0.00, (\(p\)(x \(\leq\) F) = 0.000). The test statistic F was 0.186, which was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.395: 2.526]. S1/S2 = 0.43, was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.629: 1.589]. The 95% confidence interval of \(\sigma\)12/\(\sigma\)22 was: [0.073, 0.470]. 3. For walking speed, the \(p\)-value was found to be 0.02, (\(p\)(x \(\leq\) F) = 0.988). The test statistic F was 2.961, which was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.395: 2.526, S1/S2 = 1.72, was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.629: 1.589]. The 95% confidence interval of \(\sigma\)12/\(\sigma\)22 was: [1.172, 7.481]. 4. The \(p\)-value for average stride length was 0.02, (\(p\)(x \(\leq\) F) = 0.012). The test statistic F was 0.342, which was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.395: 2.526]. S1/S2 = 0.591, was not in the 95% region of acceptance: [0.629: 1.589]. The 95% confidence interval of \(\sigma\)12/\(\sigma\)22 was: [0.135, 0.865]. Figure 7: Force sensor readings at every heel strike during the 10 m walk test. (**a**) People without osteoporosis, (**b**) people with osteoporosis. For the rest of the parameters, the two participant groups did not differ significantly (\(p\) > 0.05).