A webcam-based machine learning approach for three-dimensional range of motion evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Joint range of motion (ROM) is an important quantitative measure for physical therapy. Commonly relying on a goniometer, accurate and reliable ROM measurement requires extensive training and practice. This, in turn, imposes a significant barrier for those who have limited in-person access to healthcare. OBJECTIVE: The current study presents and evaluates an alternative machine learning-based ROM evaluation method that could be remotely accessed via a webcam. METHODS: To evaluate its reliability, the ROM measurements for a diverse set of joints (neck, spine, and upper and lower extremities) derived using this method were compared to those obtained from a marker-based optical motion capture system. RESULTS: Data collected from 25 healthy adults demonstrated that the webcam solution exhibited high test-retest reliability, with substantial to almost perfect intraclass correlation coefficients for most joints. Compared with the marker-based system, the webcam-based system demonstrated substantial to almost perfect inter-rater reliability for some joints, and lower inter-rater reliability for other joints (e.g., shoulder flexion and elbow flexion), which could be attributed to the reduced sensitivity to joint locations at the apex of the movement. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed webcam-based method exhibited high test-retest and inter-rater reliability, making it a versatile alternative for existing ROM evaluation methods in clinical practice and the tele-implementation of physical therapy and rehabilitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".