Evaluation of Various State of the Art Head Pose Estimation Algorithms for Clinical Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Head pose assessment can reveal important clinical information on human motor control. Quantitative assessment have the potential to objectively evaluate head pose and movements' specifics, in order to monitor the progression of a disease or the effectiveness of a treatment. Optoelectronic camera-based motion-capture systems, recognized as a gold standard in clinical biomechanics, have been proposed for head pose estimation. However, these systems require markers to be positioned on the person's face which is impractical for everyday clinical practice. Furthermore, the limited access to this type of equipment and the emerging trend to assess mobility in natural environments support the development of algorithms capable of estimating head orientation using off-the-shelf sensors, such as RGB cameras. Although artificial vision is a popular field of research, limited validation of human pose estimation based on image recognition suitable for clinical applications has been performed. This paper first provides a brief review of available head pose estimation algorithms in the literature. Current state-of-the-art head pose algorithms designed to capture the facial geometry from videos, OpenFace 2.0, MediaPipe and 3DDFA_V2, are then further evaluated and compared. Accuracy is assessed by comparing both approaches to a baseline, measured with an optoelectronic camera-based motion-capture system. Results reveal a mean error lower or equal to 5.6∘ for 3DDFA_V2 depending on the plane of movement, while the mean error reaches 14.1∘ and 11.0∘ for OpenFace 2.0 and MediaPipe, respectively. This demonstrates the superiority of the 3DDFA_V2 algorithm in estimating head pose, in different directions of motion, and suggests that this algorithm can be used in clinical scenarios.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
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".