Assessment of spatiotemporal gait parameters using a deep learning algorithm-based markerless motion capture system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatiotemporal parameters can characterize the gait patterns of individuals, allowing assessment of their health status and detection of clinically meaningful changes in their gait. Video-based markerless motion capture is a user-friendly, inexpensive, and widely applicable technology that could reduce the barriers to measuring spatiotemporal gait parameters in clinical and more diverse settings. Two studies were performed to determine whether gait parameters measured using markerless motion capture demonstrate concurrent validity with those measured using marker-based motion capture and a pressure-sensitive gait mat. For the first study, thirty healthy young adults performed treadmill gait at self-selected speeds while marker-based motion capture and synchronized video data were recorded simultaneously. For the second study, twenty-five healthy young adults performed over-ground gait at self-selected speeds while footfalls were recorded using a gait mat and synchronized video data were recorded simultaneously. Kinematic heel-strike and toe-off gait events were used to identify the same gait cycles between systems. Nine spatiotemporal gait parameters were measured by each system and directly compared between systems. Measurements were compared using Bland-Altman methods, mean differences, Pearson correlation coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients. The results indicate that markerless measurements of spatiotemporal gait parameters have good to excellent agreement with marker-based motion capture and gait mat systems, except for stance time and double limb support time relative to both systems and stride width relative to the gait mat. These findings indicate that markerless motion capture can adequately measure spatiotemporal gait parameters of healthy young adults during treadmill and over-ground gait.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".