Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37316703›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

A frame orientation optimisation method for consistent interpretation of kinematic signals.

Ariana Ortigas Vásquez, William R Taylor, Allan Maas, Matthias Woiczinski, Thomas M Grupp, Adrian Sauer

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ariana Ortigas VásquezResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany. ariana.ortigas_vasquez@aesculap.de.
William R TaylorLaboratory for Movement Biomechanics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Allan MaasResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany.
Matthias WoiczinskiDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), Campus Grosshadern, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas M GruppResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany.
Adrian SauerResearch and Development, Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEETH Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In clinical movement biomechanics, kinematic data are often depicted as waveforms (i.e. signals), characterising the motion of articulating joints. Clinically meaningful interpretations of the underlying joint kinematics, however, require an objective understanding of whether two different kinematic signals actually represent two different underlying physical movement patterns of the joint or not. Previously, the accuracy of IMU-based knee joint angles was assessed using a six-degrees-of-freedom joint simulator guided by fluoroscopy-based signals. Despite implementation of sensor-to-segment corrections, observed errors were clearly indicative of cross-talk, and thus inconsistent reference frame orientations. Here, we address these limitations by exploring how minimisation of dedicated cost functions can harmonise differences in frame orientations, ultimately facilitating consistent interpretation of articulating joint kinematic signals. In this study, we present and investigate a frame orientation optimisation method (FOOM) that aligns reference frames and corrects for cross-talk errors, hence yielding a consistent interpretation of the underlying movement patterns. By executing optimised rotational sequences, thus producing angular corrections around each axis, we enable a reproducible frame definition and hence an approach for reliable comparison of kinematic data. Using this approach, root-mean-square errors between the previously collected (1) IMU-based data using functional joint axes, and (2) simulated fluoroscopy-based data relying on geometrical axes were almost entirely eliminated from an initial range of 0.7°-5.1° to a mere 0.1°-0.8°. Our results confirm that different local segment frames can yield different kinematic patterns, despite following the same rotation convention, and that appropriate alignment of reference frame orientation can successfully enable consistent kinematic interpretation.

Indexed as

Knee JointBiomechanical PhenomenaCross ReactionsFluoroscopyRotation

Identifiers

PMID37316703
PMCPMC10267167
OpenAlexW4380684549

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.