MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automated Stride Detection from OpenPose Keypoints Using Handheld Smartphone Video

2023· article· en· W4386919580 on OpenAlexaff
Shri Harini Ramesh, Edward D. Lemaire, Kevin Cheung, Albert Tu, Natalie Baddour

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMobile deviceSTRIDEComputer graphics (images)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gait analysis is important for assessing neurological disorders, but existing methods require human assistance and specialized tools, which can be time-consuming and resource intensive. Healthcare providers would benefit from automated gait analysis. The first step in this process is detecting strides and identifying foot events. While many studies have focused on identifying strides, few have utilized handheld videos. In this study, walking gait was recorded using a handheld smartphone at 60Hz. Body keypoints were identified using the OpenPose - Body 25 pose estimation model, and a new algorithm was developed to identify the movement plane, foot events, and strides from the keypoints. The stride identification results were compared to ground truth foot events labeled through direct observation. Stride detection was accurate within 2 to 5 frames, demonstrating the viability of automated stride detection for smartphone-based motion analysis. This new approach can help improve gait analysis to be more efficient and accessible, especially for individuals who require remote monitoring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207