Multisegment Kinematics of the Spinal Column: Soft Tissue Artifacts Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major challenge in the assessment of intersegmental spinal column angles during trunk motion is the inherent error in recording the movement of bony anatomical landmarks caused by soft tissue artifacts (STAs). This study aims to perform an uncertainty analysis and estimate the typical errors induced by STA into the intersegmental angles of a multisegment spinal column model during trunk bending in different directions by modeling the relative displacement between skin-mounted markers and actual bony landmarks during trunk bending. First, we modeled the maximum displacement of markers relative to the bony landmarks with a multivariate Gaussian distribution. In order to estimate the distribution parameters, we measured these relative displacements on five subjects at maximum trunk bending posture. Then, in order to model the error depending on trunk bending angle, we assumed that the error grows linearly as a function of the bending angle. Second, we applied our error model to the trunk motion measurement of 11 subjects to estimate the corrected trajectories of the bony landmarks and investigate the errors induced into the intersegmental angles of a multisegment spinal column model. For this purpose, the trunk was modeled as a seven-segment rigid-body system described using 23 reflective markers placed on various bony landmarks of the spinal column. Eleven seated subjects performed trunk bending in five directions and the three-dimensional (3D) intersegmental angles during trunk bending were calculated before and after error correction. While STA minimally affected the intersegmental angles in the sagittal plane (<16%), it considerably corrupted the intersegmental angles in the coronal (error ranged from 59% to 551%) and transverse (up to 161%) planes. Therefore, we recommend using the proposed error suppression technique for STA-induced error compensation as a tool to achieve more accurate spinal column kinematics measurements. Particularly, for intersegmental rotations in the coronal and transverse planes that have small range and are highly sensitive to measurement errors, the proposed technique makes the measurement more appropriate for use in clinical decision-making processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".