Bone Orientation and Position Estimation Errors Using Cosserat Point Elements and Least Squares methods: Application to Gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of bone pose estimation based on sub-clusters of three skin-markers characterized by triangular Cosserat point elements (TCPEs) and to evaluate the capability of four instantaneous physical parameters, which can be measured non-invasively in-vivo, to identify the most accurate TCPEs. Moreover, TCPE pose estimations were compared with the estimations of two least squares minimization methods applied to the cluster of all markers, using rigid body (RBLS) and homogeneous deformation (HDLS) assumptions. Analysis was performed on previously collected in-vivo treadmill gait data composed of simultaneous measurements of the gold-standard bone pose by bi-plane fluoroscopy tracking the subjects' knee prosthesis and a stereophotogrammetric system tracking skin-markers affected by soft tissue artifact. Femur orientation and position errors estimated from skin-marker clusters were computed for 18 subjects using clusters of up to 35 markers. Results based on gold-standard data revealed that instantaneous subsets of TCPEs exist which estimate the femur pose with reasonable accuracy (median root mean square error during stance/swing: 1.4/2.8 deg for orientation, 1.5/4.2 mm for position). A non-invasive and instantaneous criteria to select accurate TCPEs for pose estimation (4.8/7.3 deg, 5.8/12.3 mm), was compared with RBLS (4.3/6.6 deg, 6.9/16.6 mm) and HDLS (4.6/7.6 deg, 6.7/12.5 mm). Accounting for homogeneous deformation, using HDLS or selected TCPEs, yielded more accurate position estimations than RBLS method, which, conversely, yielded more accurate orientation estimations. Further investigation is required to devise effective criteria for cluster selection that could represent a significant improvement in bone pose estimation accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".