Inter-session repeatability of markerless motion capture gait kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The clinical uptake and influence of gait analysis has been hindered by inherent flaws of marker-based motion capture systems, which have long been the standard method for the collection of gait data including kinematics. Markerless motion capture offers an alternative method for the collection of gait kinematics that presents several practical benefits over marker-based systems. This work aimed to determine the reliability of lower limb gait kinematics from video based markerless motion capture using an established experimental protocol for testing reliability. Eight healthy adult participants performed three sessions of five over-ground walking trials in their own self-selected clothing, separated by an average of 8.5 days, while eight synchronized and calibrated cameras recorded video. 3D pose estimates from the video data were used to compute lower limb joint angles. Inter-session variability, inter-trial variability, and the variability ratio were used to assess the reliability of the gait kinematics. Relative to repeatability studies based on marker-based motion capture, inter-trial variability was slightly greater than previously reported for some angles, with an average across all joint angles of 2.2°. Inter-session variability was smaller on average than previously reported, with an average across all joint angles of 2.5°. Variability ratios were all smaller than those previously reported with an average of 1.2, indicating that the multi-session protocol increased the total variability of joint angles by only 20% of the inter-trial variability. These results indicate that gait kinematics measured using markerless tracking were less affected by multi-session protocols compared to marker-based motion capture.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".