ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of center of mass estimation for obese using statically equivalent serial chain.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The effect of model complexity on the human center of mass estimation using the statically equivalent serial chain technique.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The complex structure of the human body makes its center of mass (CoM) estimation very challenging. The typically used estimation methods usually suffer from large estimation errors when applied to bodies with structural differences. Thus, a reliable estimation method is of utmost importance. In this paper, we present a detailed evaluation of a subject-specific CoM estimation technique named Statically Equivalent Serial Chain (SESC) by investigating its estimation ability over two different groups of subjects (Fit and Obese) in comparison to the segmental analysis method. For this study, we used an IMU-based motion capture system and a force platform to record the joint angles and corresponding center of pressure (CoP) values of twenty-five participants while performing a series of static postures. The root-mean-square errors (RMSE) of SESC's estimation for both groups showed close and lower mean values, whereas the segmental analysis method showed significantly larger RMSE values in comparison to SESC (p < 0.05). In addition, we used the Bland-Altman analysis to evaluate the agreement between the two techniques and the ground truth CoP, which showed the accuracy, precision, and reliability of SESC over both groups. In contrast, the segmental analysis method did not present neither accurate nor precise estimations, as our analysis revealed considerable fixed and proportional biases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.