MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3166937310 · doi:10.1101/2021.06.06.445011

Estimating body segment parameters from three-dimensional human body scans

2021· article· en· W3166937310 on OpenAlexafffund
Pawel Kudzia, Erika Jackson, Geneviève Dumas

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversitySimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBody shapeBody segmentHuman bodyMathematicsComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body segment parameters are inputs for a range of applications. Participant-specific estimates of body segment parameters are desirable as this requires fewer prior assumptions and can reduce outcome measurement errors. Commonly used methods for estimating participant-specific body segment parameters are either expensive and out of reach (medical imaging), have many underlying assumptions (geometrical modelling) or are based on a specific subset of a population (regression models). Our objective was to develop a participant-specific 3D scanning and body segmentation method that estimates body segment parameters without any assumptions about the geometry of the body, ethnic background, and gender, is low-cost, fast, and can be readily available. Using a Microsoft Kinect Version 2 camera, we developed a 3D surface scanning protocol that enabled the estimation of participant-specific body segment parameters. To evaluate our system, we performed repeated 3D scans of 21 healthy participants (10 male, 11 female). We used open source tools to segment each body scan into 16 segments (head, torso, abdomen, pelvis, left and right hand, forearm, upper arm, foot, shank and thigh) and wrote custom software to estimate each segment's mass, mass moment of inertia in the three principal orthogonal axes relevant to the center of the segment, longitudinal length, and center of mass. We compared our body segment parameter estimates to those obtained using two comparison methods and found that our system was consistent in estimating total body volume between repeated scans (male p = 0.1194, female p = 0.2240), estimated total body mass without significant differences when compared to our comparison method and a medical scale (male p = 0.8529, female p = 0.6339), and generated consistent and comparable estimates across a range of the body segment parameters of interest. Our work here outlines and provides the code for an inexpensive 3D surface scanning method for estimating a range of participant-specific body segment parameters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→