Markerless Motion Capture to Quantify Functional Performance in Neurodegeneration: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Markerless motion capture (MMC) uses video cameras or depth sensors for full body tracking and presents a promising approach for objectively and unobtrusively monitoring functional performance within community settings, to aid clinical decision-making in neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this systematic review was to investigate the application of MMC using full-body tracking, to quantify functional performance in people with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and Parkinson disease. METHODS: A systematic search of the Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was conducted between November 2022 and February 2023, which yielded a total of 1595 results. The inclusion criteria were MMC and full-body tracking. A total of 157 studies were included for full-text screening, out of which 26 eligible studies that met the selection criteria were included in the review. . RESULTS: Primarily, the selected studies focused on gait analysis (n=24), while other functional tasks, such as sit to stand (n=5) and stepping in place (n=1), were also explored. However, activities of daily living were not evaluated in any of the included studies. MMC models varied across the studies, encompassing depth cameras (n=18) versus standard video cameras (n=5) or mobile phone cameras (n=2) with postprocessing using deep learning models. However, only 6 studies conducted rigorous comparisons with established gold-standard motion capture models. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its potential as an effective tool for analyzing movement and posture in individuals with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and Parkinson disease, further research is required to establish the clinical usefulness of MMC in quantifying mobility and functional performance in the real world.
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 | 0.010 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".