Comparing Inertial Measurement Units to Markerless Video Analysis for Movement Symmetry in Quarter Horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of systems for quantifying lameness-related movement asymmetry, between-system comparisons under non-laboratory conditions are important for multi-centre or referral-level studies. This study compares an artificial intelligence video app to a validated inertial measurement unit (IMU) gait analysis system in a specific group of horses. METHODS: Twenty-two reining Quarter horses were equipped with nine body-mounted IMUs while being videoed with a smartphone app. Both systems quantified head and pelvic movement symmetry during in-hand trot (hard/soft ground) and on the lunge (left/right rein, soft ground). Proportional limits of agreement (pLoA) were established. RESULTS: Widths of pLoA were larger for head movement (29% to 50% in-hand; 22% to 38% on lunge) than for pelvic movement (13% to 24% in-hand; 14% to 24% on lunge). CONCLUSION: The between-system pLoAs exceed current "lameness thresholds" aimed at identifying the affected limb(s) in lame horses. They also exceed published limits of agreement for stride-matched data but are similar to repeatability values and "lameness thresholds" from "non-lame" horses. This is encouraging for multi-centre studies and referral-level veterinary practice. The narrower pLoA values for pelvic movement asymmetry are particularly encouraging, given the difficulty of grading hind limb lameness "by eye".
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".