A Validation of Supervised Deep Learning for Gait Analysis in the Cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait analysis in cats and other animals is generally performed with custom-made or commercially developed software to track reflective markers placed on bony landmarks. This often involves costly motion tracking systems. However, deep learning, and in particular DeepLabCut TM (DLC), allows motion tracking without requiring placing reflective markers or an expensive system. The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy of DLC for gait analysis in the adult cat by comparing results obtained with DLC and a custom-made software (Expresso) that has been used in several cat studies. Four intact adult cats performed tied-belt (both belts at same speed) and split-belt (belts operating at different speeds) locomotion at different speeds and left-right speed differences on a split-belt treadmill. We calculated several kinematic variables, such as step/stride lengths and joint angles from the estimates made by the two software and assessed the agreement between the two measurements using intraclass correlation coefficient or Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient as well as Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The results showed that DLC is at least as precise as Expresso with good to excellent agreement for all variables. Indeed, all 12 variables showed an agreement above 0.75, considered good, while nine showed an agreement above 0.9, considered excellent. Therefore, deep learning, specifically DLC, is valid for measuring kinematic variables during locomotion in cats, without requiring reflective markers and using a relatively low-cost system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".