MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D Human Knee Flexion Angle Estimation Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks

2020· article· en· W3081616638 on OpenAlexaff
Pouria Chalangari, Thomas Fevens, Hassan Rivaz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceVirtual realityArtificial intelligencePoseTask (project management)Deep learningKey (lock)Machine learningJumpComputer visionSimulationHuman–computer interactionComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury can cause a serious burden, especially for athletes participating in relatively risky sports. This raises a growing incentive for designing injury-prevention programs. For this purpose, the analysis of the drop jump landing test, for example, can provide a useful asset for recognizing those who are more likely to sustain knee injuries. Knee flexion angle plays a key role within these test scenarios. Multiple research efforts have been conducted on engaging existing technologies such as the Microsoft Kinect sensor and Motion Capture (MoCap) to investigate the connection between the lower limb angle ranges during jump tests and the injury risk associated with them. Even though these technologies provide sufficient capabilities to researchers and clinicians, they need certain levels of knowledge to enable them to utilize these facilities. Moreover, these systems demand special requirements and setup procedures which make them limiting. Due to recent advances in the area of Deep Learning, numerous powerful 3D pose estimation algorithms have been developed over the last few years. Having access to relatively reliable and accurate 3D body keypoint information can lead to successful detection and prevention of injury. The idea of combining temporal convolutions in video sequences with deep Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) offer a substantial opportunity to tackle the challenging task of accurate 3D human pose estimation. Using the Microsoft Kinect sensor as our ground truth, we analyze the performance of CNN-based 3D human pose estimation in everyday settings. The qualitative and quantitative results are convincing enough to give an incentive to pursue further improvements, especially in the task of lower extremity kinematics estimation. In addition to the performance comparison between Kinect and CNN, we have also verified the high-margin of consistency between two Kinect sensors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207