Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34667207›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

The accuracy of several pose estimation methods for 3D joint centre localisation.

Laurie Needham, Murray Evans, Darren P Cosker, Logan Wade, Polly M McGuigan, James L Bilzon, Steffi L Colyer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laurie NeedhamCentre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, University of Bath, Bath, UK. ln424@bath.ac.uk.
Murray EvansCentre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Darren P CoskerCentre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Logan WadeCentre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Polly M McGuiganCentre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
James L BilzonCentre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Steffi L ColyerCentre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
University of Bath · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human movement researchers are often restricted to laboratory environments and data capture techniques that are time and/or resource intensive. Markerless pose estimation algorithms show great potential to facilitate large scale movement studies 'in the wild', i.e., outside of the constraints imposed by marker-based motion capture. However, the accuracy of such algorithms has not yet been fully evaluated. We computed 3D joint centre locations using several pre-trained deep-learning based pose estimation methods (OpenPose, AlphaPose, DeepLabCut) and compared to marker-based motion capture. Participants performed walking, running and jumping activities while marker-based motion capture data and multi-camera high speed images (200 Hz) were captured. The pose estimation algorithms were applied to 2D image data and 3D joint centre locations were reconstructed. Pose estimation derived joint centres demonstrated systematic differences at the hip and knee (~ 30-50 mm), most likely due to mislabeling of ground truth data in the training datasets. Where systematic differences were lower, e.g., the ankle, differences of 1-15 mm were observed depending on the activity. Markerless motion capture represents a highly promising emerging technology that could free movement scientists from laboratory environments but 3D joint centre locations are not yet consistently comparable to marker-based motion capture.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnkle JointBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleGaitHumansKnee JointLower ExtremityMaleMotionMovementRunningWalking

Identifiers

PMID34667207
PMCPMC8526586
OpenAlexW3206108968

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.