MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence Of Sex On Marker To Marker-less Motion Capture Evaluations Of Gait Biomechanics

2024· article· en· W4402662617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neil A. Wills, Derek N. Pamukoff, Iwi J. Eghobamien, Vital I. Nwaokoro

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGait Recognition and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomechanicsGaitSports biomechanicsMotion captureMotion (physics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineSimulationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marker-based (MB) motion capture is affected by pelvic shape and soft tissue distribution that differ between sexes. Marker-less (ML) motion capture may provide an alternative. PURPOSE: To compare the effect of sex and method on knee and hip kinematics during gait. METHODS: Twenty participants (10 females: Age = 20.3 ± 0.95 years; Body Mass Index = 21 ± 1.83 kg/m2; 10 males: Age = 21.7 ± 1.34 years; Body Mass Index = 23.37 ± 1.37 kg/m2) participated. Participants completed two over-ground gait sessions at a self-selected pace with MB and ML recording a full right limb gait cycle simultaneously. Hip and knee kinematics in the sagittal and frontal plane were extracted and time-normalized from 0-100% of the gait cycle. Statistical parametric mapping using 2 (sex) by 2 (method) ANOVA with repeated measures compared kinematic waveforms. RESULTS: Interaction effects were found for sagittal plane hip angle from 0-7% (p = 0.009) and 71-100% (p = 0.004) of gait (F = 9.013). ML hip flexion angle was lower for 100% of gait compared to MB (p > 0.001, Z = 2.69), but sex comparisons were influenced by method. Females had greater hip flexion than males in MB (p < 0.001, Z = 3.29) from 0-33% and 64-100% of gait but no difference between sexes were found in ML. There was a main effect of method for frontal plane hip angle from 57-79% of gait (p = 0.007, F = 9.728). ML had less hip abduction (p = 0.005, Z = 2.92) from 57-79% of gait compared to MB. A main effect of method was found for sagittal plane knee angle from 3-23% and 39-100% of gait (p < 0.001, F = 11.965) and frontal plane knee angle from 34-40% and 84-92% of the gait cycle (p = 0.033, p = 0.019, F = 11.261). Knee flexion from 1-25% and 38-100% (p < 0.001, Z = 3.11) and knee adduction from 27-41% and 83-93% of gait were less for ML compared with MB, respectively (p = 0.01, p = 0.003, Z = 3.12). A main effect of sex was found for frontal plane hip angle from 0-40% and 63-100% (p = 0.001, F = 9.013). Females had a larger hip adduction angle than males (p = 0.007, Z = 2.86) between 72-90% of gait. CONCLUSION: Motion capture method influences gait comparisons between sexes, particularly at the hip joint. Studies are needed to develop sex specific ML models that identify differences in hip kinematics between males and females. Lastly, consistent main effects were observed of method that indicate some offset between MB and ML methods for other outcomes. Canadian Foundation for Innovation John R. Evans Leader Fund (Project 42110; PI: Pamukoff) Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2022-04804; PI: Pamukoff)

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicGait Recognition and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207