Within- and Between-Session Reliability of Pelvic Marker Placement and Posture in Lower-Limb Amputees
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Accurate placement of anatomical markers is essential for valid three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis, yet individuals with lower-limb amputation (LLA) pose unique challenges due to altered anatomy, prosthetic interfaces, and increased adiposity. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed within- and between-session reliability of pelvis marker placement and static posture kinematics in adults with unilateral LLA. METHODOLOGY: Fourteen adults with unilateral LLA (age: 58 ± 15 years, height: 174.6 ± 7.5 cm, body mass: 91.1 ± 27.7 kg, BMI: 29.6 ± 7.5 kg/m²; eleven transtibial, three transfemoral) participated in two sessions spaced 3–13 months apart. Reliability of marker distances and static posture kinematics were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). FINDINGS: Within-session reliability of pelvis marker distances was good to excellent (ICC ≥ 0.78), whereas between-session reliability was lower (ICC as low as 0.14), particularly for posterior superior iliac spine markers. Pelvis kinematics demonstrated moderate reliability within sessions (average ICC ≈ 0.71), but trunk kinematics showed poor reliability. SEM values were low (<5°), suggesting acceptable absolute consistency despite variable ICCs, likely driven by postural changes and prosthetic factors. CONCLUSION: Findings support reliable pelvis marker placement within sessions but highlight challenges for longitudinal consistency. Multiple trial collections and standardised posture protocols are recommended to improve long-term reliability. Layman's Abstract Accurately placing small reflective markers on the body is very important for correctly measuring how people move during three-dimensional (3D) gait (walking) analysis. However, this can be more difficult in people with lower-limb amputations (LLA) because their anatomy is different, they use artificial limbs, and body shapes can vary. This study looked at how consistently these markers can be placed on the pelvis in adults with unilateral LLA. Fourteen adults participated in two sessions spaced 3–13 months apart. We assessed the consistency of the marker positions comparing them within and between sessions. We found that pelvis marker placement was quite reliable when tested in the same session, but less consistent between sessions, especially for markers placed on the back of the pelvis. The overall body posture and trunk positions also varied more between sessions. Even so, the size of the differences was small, meaning that the results were still fairly reliable to extract information about the motion. Findings support reliable pelvis marker placement within sessions but highlight challenges across longer time periods. Multiple trial collections and standardised posture guidelines are recommended to improve long-term reliability. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/46063/34419 How To Cite: Withey A, Cazzola D, Tabor A, Seminati E. Within- and between-session reliability of pelvic marker placement and posture in lower-limb amputees. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2025; Volume 8, Issue 2, No. 2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v8i2.46063 Corresponding Author: Alexandra Withey,Affiliation: Affiliation: Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.E-Mail: anmw20@bath.ac.uk ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9422-2306
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».