ArticleVeterinary and animal science2023
Extraction of canine gait characteristics using a mobile gait analysis system based on inertial measurement units.
Article in Veterinary and animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Canine gait analysis using inertial sensors and deep learning for orthopedic and neurological disorders.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating Gait Abnormalities in Asian Elephants Using Inertial Measurement Unit-Based Vertical Movement Symmetry Analysis: A Pilot Study.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Serial kinematic analysis using inertial measurement units in growing dogs at risk of hip dysplasia.Veterinary and animal science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to investigate two simple algorithms for extracting gait features from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) based canine gait analysis system. The first algorithm was developed to determine the hip/shoulder extension/flexion range of motion. The second algorithm automatically determines the stance and swing phase per leg. To investigate the accuracy of the algorithms, two dogs were walked on a treadmill and measured simultaneously with an IMU system, an optical tracking system and two cameras. The range of motion estimation was compared to the optical tracking systems, with a total of 280 steps recorded. To test the stance and swing phase detection, a total of 63 steps were manually annotated in the video recordings and compared with the output of the algorithm. The IMU's-based estimation of the range of motion showed an average deviation of 1.4° to 5.6° from the optical reference, while the average deviation in the detection of the beginning and end of the stance and swing phases ranged from -0.01 to 0.09 s. This study shows that even simple algorithms can extract relevant information from inertial measurements that are comparable to results from more complex approaches. However, additional studies including a wider subject pool need to be conducted to investigate the significance of the presented findings.
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.