Concurrent assessment of gait kinematics using marker-based and markerless motion capture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Kinematic analysis is a useful and widespread tool used in research and clinical biomechanics for the estimation of human pose and the quantification of human movement. Common marker-based optical motion capture systems are expensive, time intensive, and require highly trained operators to obtain kinematic data. Markerless motion capture systems offer an alternative method for the measurement of kinematic data with several practical benefits. This work compared the kinematics of human gait measured using a deep learning algorithm-based markerless motion capture system to those of a common marker-based motion capture system. Thirty healthy adult participants walked on a treadmill while data were simultaneously recorded using eight video cameras (markerless) and seven infrared optical motion capture cameras (marker-based). Video data were processed using markerless motion capture software, marker-based data were processed using marker-based capture software, and both sets of data were compared. The average root mean square distance (RMSD) between corresponding joints was less than 2.5 cm for all joints except the hip, which was 3.6 cm. Lower limb segment angles indicated pose estimates from both systems were very similar, with RMSD of less than 5.5° for all segment angles except those that represent rotations about the long axis of the segment. Lower limb joint angles captured similar patterns for flexion/extension at all joints, ab/adduction at the knee and hip, and toe-in/toe-out at the ankle. These findings demonstrate markerless motion capture can measure similar 3D kinematics to those from marker-based systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".