Accuracy and kinematics consistency of marker-based scaling approaches on a lower limb model: a comparative study with imagery data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical images are not typically included in protocol of motion laboratories. Thus, accurate scaling of musculoskeletal models from optoelectronic data are important for any biomechanical analysis. The aim of the current study was to identify a scaling method based on optoelectronic data, inspired from literature, which could offer the best trade-off between accurate geometrical parameters (segment lengths, orientation of joint axes, marker coordinates) and consistent inverse kinematics outputs (kinematic error, joint angles). The methods were applied on 26 subjects and assessed with medical imagery building EOS-based models, considered as a reference. The main contribution of this paper is to show that the marker-based scaling followed by an optimisation of orientation joint axes and markers local coordinates, gives the most consistent scaling and joint angles with EOS-based models. Thus, when a non-invasive mean with an optoelectronic system is considered, a marker-based scaling is preliminary needed to get accurate segment lengths and to optimise joint axes and marker local coordinates to reduce kinematic errors.AbbrevationsAJCAnkle joint centreCKEcumulative kinematic errorDoFdegree of freedomEBEOS-basedHBheight-basedHJChip joint centreKJCknee joint centreMBmarker-basedMSMmusculoskeletal modelsSPMstatistical parametric mappingSTAsoft tissue artifactEBa.m∗EOS-based with optimised joint axes, and all model markers coordinatesMBa.m∗marker-based with optimised joint axes, and all model markers coordinatesMBl.a.mmarker-based with optimised segment lengths, joint axes, and selected model markers coordinatesASISanterior superior illiac spinePSISposterior superior illiac spine
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".