A Method for Quantifying Back Flexion/Extension from Three Inertial Measurement Units Mounted on a Horse’s Withers, Thoracolumbar Region, and Pelvis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back mobility is a criterion of well-being in a horse. Veterinarians visually assess the mobility of a horse's back during a locomotor examination. Quantifying it with on-board technology could be a major breakthrough to help them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a method of quantifying the back mobility of horses from inertial measurement units (IMUs) compared to motion capture (MOCAP) as a gold standard. Reflective markers and IMUs were positioned on the withers, eighteenth thoracic vertebra, and pelvis of four sound horses. The horses performed a walk and trot in straight lines and performed a gallop in circles on a soft surface. The developed method, based on the three IMUs, consists of calculating the flexion/extension angle of the thoracolumbar region. The IMU method showed a mean bias of 0.8° (±1.5°) (mean (±SD)) and 0.8° (±1.4°), respectively, for the flexion and extension movements, all gaits combined, compared to the MOCAP method. The results of this study suggest that the developed method has a similar accuracy to that of MOCAP, opening up possibilities for easy measurements under field conditions. Future studies will need to examine the correlations between these biomechanical measures and clinicians' visual assessment of back mobility defects.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".