Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38139471›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

A Method for Quantifying Back Flexion/Extension from Three Inertial Measurement Units Mounted on a Horse's Withers, Thoracolumbar Region, and Pelvis.

Chloé Hatrisse, Claire Macaire, Camille Hebert, Sandrine Hanne-Poujade, Emeline De Azevedo, Fabrice Audigié, Khalil Ben Mansour, Frederic Marin, Pauline Martin, Neila Mezghani and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Chloé HatrisseLaboratoire de Biomécanique et Mécanique des Chocs (LBMC) UMR_T 9406, Université Gustave Eiffel, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8307-3640
Claire MacaireCIRALE, USC 957 BPLC, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2381-7465
Camille HebertLabcom LIM-ENVA, LIM France, 24300 Nontron, France.
Sandrine Hanne-PoujadeLabcom LIM-ENVA, LIM France, 24300 Nontron, France.
Emeline De AzevedoCIRALE, USC 957 BPLC, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France.
Fabrice AudigiéCIRALE, USC 957 BPLC, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France.
Khalil Ben MansourLaboratoire de BioMécanique et BioIngénierie (UMR CNRS 7338), Centre of Excellence for Human and Animal Movement Biomechanics (CoEMoB), Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), Alliance Sorbonne Université, 60200 Compiègne, France.
Frederic MarinLaboratoire de BioMécanique et BioIngénierie (UMR CNRS 7338), Centre of Excellence for Human and Animal Movement Biomechanics (CoEMoB), Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), Alliance Sorbonne Université, 60200 Compiègne, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0440-4849
Pauline MartinLabcom LIM-ENVA, LIM France, 24300 Nontron, France.
Neila MezghaniLaboratoire d'Innovation Ouverte en Technologies de la Santé (LIO), Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, QC H2X 0A9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5935-4570
Henry ChateauCIRALE, USC 957 BPLC, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, 94700 Maisons-Alfort, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1977-1521
Laurence ChèzeLaboratoire de Biomécanique et Mécanique des Chocs (LBMC) UMR_T 9406, Université Gustave Eiffel, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, 69622 Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2265-9781
École Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort · FRUniversité de Technologie de Compiègne · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CA

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche contrat n°ANR-20-CE19-0016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Back mobility is a criterion of well-being in a horse. Veterinarians visually assess the mobility of a horse's back during a locomotor examination. Quantifying it with on-board technology could be a major breakthrough to help them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a method of quantifying the back mobility of horses from inertial measurement units (IMUs) compared to motion capture (MOCAP) as a gold standard. Reflective markers and IMUs were positioned on the withers, eighteenth thoracic vertebra, and pelvis of four sound horses. The horses performed a walk and trot in straight lines and performed a gallop in circles on a soft surface. The developed method, based on the three IMUs, consists of calculating the flexion/extension angle of the thoracolumbar region. The IMU method showed a mean bias of 0.8° (±1.5°) (mean (±SD)) and 0.8° (±1.4°), respectively, for the flexion and extension movements, all gaits combined, compared to the MOCAP method. The results of this study suggest that the developed method has a similar accuracy to that of MOCAP, opening up possibilities for easy measurements under field conditions. Future studies will need to examine the correlations between these biomechanical measures and clinicians' visual assessment of back mobility defects.

Indexed as

BackGaitAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaHorsesOrganothiophosphatesPelvisethopropOrganothiophosphatesbackflexion/extensionhorseIMUthoracolumbar

Identifiers

PMID38139471
PMCPMC10747348
OpenAlexW4389346820

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.