Comparing the Drop Vertical Jump Tracking Performance of the Azure Kinect to the Kinect V2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional motion analysis systems are impractical for widespread screening of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk. The Kinect V2 has been identified as a portable and reliable alternative but was replaced by the Azure Kinect. We hypothesize that the Azure Kinect will assess drop vertical jump (DVJ) parameters associated with ACL injury risk with similar accuracy to its predecessor, the Kinect V2. Sixty-nine participants performed DVJs while being recorded by both the Azure Kinect and the Kinect V2 simultaneously. Our software analyzed the data to identify initial coronal, peak coronal, and peak sagittal knee angles. Agreement between the two systems was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). There was poor agreement between the Azure Kinect and the Kinect V2 for initial and peak coronal angles (ICC values ranging from 0.135 to 0.446), and moderate agreement for peak sagittal angles (ICC = 0.608, 0.655 for left and right knees, respectively). At this point in time, the Azure Kinect system is not a reliable successor to the Kinect V2 system for assessment of initial coronal, peak coronal, and peak sagittal angles during a DVJ, despite demonstrating superior tracking of continuous knee angles. Alternative motion analysis systems should be explored.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".