Response on “Commentary on “Is gaitrite system sensitive in discriminating gait pattern of subjects affected by Charcot Marie tooth? A pilot study””

assessment in CMT patients.In this context, the term "sensitive" in the title was used in a restricted sense, referring to the ability of the system to distinguish between CMT patients and healthy controls in our sample.We share the view that considerations regarding reliability indices and minimum detectable change are essential.Since our study was cross-sectional and not aimed at assessing within-subject change over time, these aspects were beyond its scope.Regarding statistical analysis, as an exploratory pilot study, we acknowledge some limitations that could be addressed in future research.In addition to the small sample size, a further limitation is that our analysis was restricted to a set of bivariate comparisons.In our study, gait speed was not treated as a covariate because reduced walking speed represents a central feature of functional impairment in CMT and reflects part of the clinical phenotype captured by both clinical scales and instrumental measures.We hope that these initial findings will serve as a foundation for future studies that more comprehensively address potential confounding factors such as walking speed.Finally, we appreciate the opportunity to clarify the distinction between GAITRite hardware and PKMAS software, as we described in the Methods section.We agree that transparency regarding acquisition and processing algorithms is fundamental in instrumental gait research.In conclusion, we view Dr. Gouelle's remarks as a constructive contribution that highlights important methodological standards for future studies.We hope that our findings will offer preliminary evidence supporting the feasibility and potential clinical utility of instrumented gait analysis in CMT, to be confirmed in larger and methodologically more comprehensive studies.