MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389329895 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-47875-2

A graph-based approach can improve keypoint detection of complex poses: a proof-of-concept on injury occurrences in alpine ski racing

2023· article· en· W4389329895 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Zwölfer, D. Heinrich, Bastian Wandt, Helge Rhodin, Jörg Spörri, Werner Nachbauer

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversität Innsbruck
KeywordsProof of conceptGraphComputer scienceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For most applications, 2D keypoint detection works well and offers a simple and fast tool to analyse human movements. However, there remain many situations where even the best state-of-the-art algorithms reach their limits and fail to detect human keypoints correctly. Such situations may occur especially when individual body parts are occluded, twisted, or when the whole person is flipped. Especially when analysing injuries in alpine ski racing, such twisted and rotated body positions occur frequently. To improve the detection of keypoints for this application, we developed a novel method that refines keypoint estimates by rotating the input videos. We select the best rotation for every frame with a graph-based global solver. Thereby, we improve keypoint detection of an arbitrary pose estimation algorithm, in particular for 'hard' keypoints. In the current proof-of-concept study, we show that our approach outperforms standard keypoint detection results in all categories and in all metrics, in injury-related out-of-balance and fall situations by a large margin as well as previous methods, in performance and robustness. The Injury Ski II dataset was made publicly available, aiming to facilitate the investigation of sports accidents based on computer vision in the future.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207