The development of a novel grip motion analysis technique using the Dartfish movement analysis software to evaluate hand movements during activities of daily living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with hand osteoarthritis (OA) have impairments in grip strength and range of motion (ROM). Obtaining quantitative joint angle measures of the hand is difficult. Without a complete understanding of the kinematics of the hand, the assessment of hand OA when performing activities of daily living (ADL) and recreational activities is not fully understood. The objectives of this study were to establish a simple measurement technique (Grip Configuration Model) describing an individual's grip ROM using the Dartfish Movement Analysis Software, and compare the joint angle measures during maximum flexion/extension and five ADL in people with/without hand OA. Forty participants (20 without hand OA, 20 with hand OA) thumb CMC and MCP, and index MCP and PIP joint angles were evaluated for each activity using the Dartfish Software and Grip Configuration Model. Significant limitations of 17.2% (p < 0.001) and 12.7% (p = 0.01) were seen in the group with hand OA for maximum flexion/extension, respectively. The spray bottle task demonstrated a significant difference of 14.7% (p = 0.001) between the two test groups. Measurements using the Dartfish Software were compared against a manual goniometer and electromagnetic tracking system. This study demonstrated the weakened ROM in individuals with hand OA is translated to ADL and how the Grip Configuration Model simplifies the evaluation of how people grasp objects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".