Can We Quantify Aging-Associated Postural Changes Using Photogrammetry? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aging is widely known to be associated with changes in standing posture. Recent advancements in the field of computerized image processing have allowed for improved analyses of several health conditions using photographs. However, photogrammetry's potential for assessing aging-associated postural changes is yet unclear. Thus, the aim of this review is to evaluate the potential of photogrammetry in quantifying age-related postural changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the databases PubMed Central, Scopus, Embase, and SciELO from the beginning of records to March 2021. Inclusion criteria were: (a) participants were older adults aged ≥60; (b) standing posture was assessed by photogrammetric means. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: Of 946 articles reviewed, after screening and the removal of duplicates, 11 reports were found eligible for full-text assessment, of which 5 full studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant changes occurring with aging included deepening of thoracic kyphosis, flattening of lumbar lordosis, and increased sagittal inclination. CONCLUSIONS: These changes agree with commonly described aging-related postural changes. However, detailed quantification of these changes was not found; the photogrammetrical methods used were often unvalidated and did not adhere to known protocols. These methodological difficulties call for further studies using validated photogrammetrical methods and improved research methodologies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".