Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977706›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

A comparison of machine learning models' accuracy in predicting lower-limb joints' kinematics, kinetics, and muscle forces from wearable sensors.

Shima Mohammadi Moghadam, Ted Yeung, Julie Choisne

Open access · goldFull text readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. [Progress and application of machine learning in sports injury research].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Interpretable prediction of knee joint loading during tennis serves based on GNN-GRU model and layer-wise relevance propagation.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shima Mohammadi MoghadamAuckland Bioengineering Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Ted YeungAuckland Bioengineering Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Julie ChoisneAuckland Bioengineering Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. j.choisne@auckland.ac.nz.
University of Auckland · NZAuckland Institute of Studies · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A combination of wearable sensors' data and Machine Learning (ML) techniques has been used in many studies to predict specific joint angles and moments. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of four different non-linear regression ML models to estimate lower-limb joints' kinematics, kinetics, and muscle forces using Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) and electromyographys' (EMGs) data. Seventeen healthy volunteers (9F, 28 ± 5 years) were asked to walk over-ground for a minimum of 16 trials. For each trial, marker trajectories and three force-plates data were recorded to calculate pelvis, hip, knee, and ankle kinematics and kinetics, and muscle forces (the targets), as well as 7 IMUs and 16 EMGs. The features from sensors' data were extracted using the Tsfresh python package and fed into 4 ML models; Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine, and Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline for targets' prediction. The RF and CNN models outperformed the other ML models by providing lower prediction errors in all intended targets with a lower computational cost. This study suggested that a combination of wearable sensors' data with an RF or a CNN model is a promising tool to overcome the limitations of traditional optical motion capture for 3D gait analysis.

Indexed as

GaitWearable Electronic DevicesBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansMachine LearningMuscles

Identifiers

PMID36977706
PMCPMC10049990
OpenAlexW4361214613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read19
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.