Assessing the validity of a wearable shoulder motion tracking system through comparison with dartfish in patients undergoing shoulder joint replacement surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective assessments of shoulder motion are paramount for effective rehabilitation and evaluation of surgical outcomes. Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) have demonstrated promise in providing unbiased movement data. This study is dedicated to evaluating the concurrent construct validity and accuracy of a wearable IMU-based sensor system, called 'Motion Shirt', for the assessment of humero-thoracic motion arcs in patients awaiting shoulder replacement surgery. This evaluation was conducted by comparing Motion Shirt data with the Dartfish Motion Analyzer software during the Functional Impairment Test-Hand and Neck/Shoulder/Arm (FIT-HaNSA) test. Thirteen patients (age > 50), who were awaiting shoulder replacement surgery, were recruited. The Motion Shirt was employed to measure angular humero-thoracic movements in two planes during the FIT-HaNSA test. Simultaneously, two cameras recorded the participants' movements to provide reference data. Bland-Altman plots were generated to visualize agreement between the Motion Shirt and the reference data obtained from the Dartfish Motion Analyzer software. The data analysis on Bland-Altman plots revealed a substantial level of agreement between the Motion Shirt and Dartfish analysis in measuring humero-thoracic motion. In Task-1, no significant systematic errors were exhibited, with only 3.27% and 2.18% of points exceeding the limits of agreement (LOA) in both elevation and the Plane of Elevation (POE), signifying a high level of concordance. In Task-2, a high level of agreement was also observed in Elevation, with only 3.8% of points exceeding the LOA. However, 5.98% of points exceeded LOA in POE for Task-2. In Task-3, focused on sustained overhead activity, the Motion Shirt showed strong agreement with Dartfish in Elevation (2.44% points exceeded LOA), but in POE, 7.32% points exceeded LOA. The Motion Shirt demonstrated a robust concordance with Dartfish Motion Analyzer system in assessing humerothoracic motion during the FIT-HaNSA test. These results affirm the Motion Shirt's suitability for objective motion analysis in patients awaiting shoulder replacement surgery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".