Automated Implementation of the Edinburgh Visual Gait Score (EVGS) Using OpenPose and Handheld Smartphone Video
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in computing and artificial intelligence (AI) make it possible to quantitatively evaluate human movement using digital video, thereby opening the possibility of more accessible gait analysis. The Edinburgh Visual Gait Score (EVGS) is an effective tool for observational gait analysis, but human scoring of videos can take over 20 min and requires experienced observers. This research developed an algorithmic implementation of the EVGS from handheld smartphone video to enable automatic scoring. Participant walking was video recorded at 60 Hz using a smartphone, and body keypoints were identified using the OpenPose BODY25 pose estimation model. An algorithm was developed to identify foot events and strides, and EVGS parameters were determined at relevant gait events. Stride detection was accurate within two to five frames. The level of agreement between the algorithmic and human reviewer EVGS results was strong for 14 of 17 parameters, and the algorithmic EVGS results were highly correlated (r > 0.80, "r" represents the Pearson correlation coefficient) to the ground truth values for 8 of the 17 parameters. This approach could make gait analysis more accessible and cost-effective, particularly in areas without gait assessment expertise. These findings pave the way for future studies to explore the use of smartphone video and AI algorithms in remote gait analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".