Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37237580›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Machine Learning for Optical Motion Capture-Driven Musculoskeletal Modelling from Inertial Motion Capture Data.

Abhishek Dasgupta, Rahul Sharma, Challenger Mishra, Vikranth Harthikote Nagaraja

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Transfer Learning With Simulated and Recorded Data Improves Predictions of Lateral Pinch Thumb-Tip Forces.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Abhishek DasguptaDoctoral Training Centre, University of Oxford, 1-4 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4420-0656
Rahul SharmaLaboratory for Computation and Visualization in Mathematics and Mechanics, Institute of Mathematics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0700-3098
Challenger MishraDepartment of Computer Science & Technology, University of Cambridge, 15 J.J. Thomson Ave., Cambridge CB3 0FD, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7920-0897
Vikranth Harthikote NagarajaNatural Interaction Laboratory, Department of Engineering Science, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford OX3 7DQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7491-8242
University of Oxford · GBÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CHUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation 200020 182184
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marker-based Optical Motion Capture (OMC) systems and associated musculoskeletal (MSK) modelling predictions offer non-invasively obtainable insights into muscle and joint loading at an in vivo level, aiding clinical decision-making. However, an OMC system is lab-based, expensive, and requires a line of sight. Inertial Motion Capture (IMC) techniques are widely-used alternatives, which are portable, user-friendly, and relatively low-cost, although with lesser accuracy. Irrespective of the choice of motion capture technique, one typically uses an MSK model to obtain the kinematic and kinetic outputs, which is a computationally expensive tool increasingly well approximated by machine learning (ML) methods. Here, an ML approach is presented that maps experimentally recorded IMC input data to the human upper-extremity MSK model outputs computed from ('gold standard') OMC input data. Essentially, this proof-of-concept study aims to predict higher-quality MSK outputs from the much easier-to-obtain IMC data. We use OMC and IMC data simultaneously collected for the same subjects to train different ML architectures that predict OMC-driven MSK outputs from IMC measurements. In particular, we employed various neural network (NN) architectures, such as Feed-Forward Neural Networks (FFNNs) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) (vanilla, Long Short-Term Memory, and Gated Recurrent Unit) and a comprehensive search for the best-fit model in the hyperparameters space in both subject-exposed (SE) as well as subject-naive (SN) settings. We observed a comparable performance for both FFNN and RNN models, which have a high degree of agreement (ravg,SE,FFNN=0.90±0.19, ravg,SE,RNN=0.89±0.17, ravg,SN,FFNN=0.84±0.23, and ravg,SN,RNN=0.78±0.23) with the desired OMC-driven MSK estimates for held-out test data. The findings demonstrate that mapping IMC inputs to OMC-driven MSK outputs using ML models could be instrumental in transitioning MSK modelling from 'lab to field'.

Indexed as

feed-forward neural networkgated recurrent unitinertial motion capturelinear modellong short-term memorymachine learningmusculoskeletal modellingoptical motion capturerecurrent neural networkupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID37237580
PMCPMC10215337
OpenAlexW4366826249

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.