ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Knee Angle Estimation with Dynamic Calibration Using Inertial Measurement Units for Running.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Simple Minimum-Setup Pipeline for Using Leg-Worn Inertial Sensors to Track Knee Flexion: Validation on 10 Movements.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Wearable Sensors for Precise Exercise Monitoring and Analysis.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Body-worn inertial measurement units track knee flexion angles with similar accuracy to optical motion capture.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Consistency Is Key: A Secondary Analysis of Wearable Motion Sensor Accuracy Measuring Knee Angles Across Activities of Daily Living Before and After Knee Arthroplasty.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Optimization of MIMU Mounting Position on Shank in Posture Estimation Considering Muscle Protuberance.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The knee flexion angle is an important measurement for studies of the human gait. Running is a common activity with a high risk of knee injury. Studying the running gait in realistic situations is challenging because accurate joint angle measurements typically come from optical motion-capture systems constrained to laboratory settings. This study considers the use of shank and thigh inertial sensors within three different filtering algorithms to estimate the knee flexion angle for running without requiring sensor-to-segment mounting assumptions, body measurements, specific calibration poses, or magnetometers. The objective of this study is to determine the knee flexion angle within running applications using accelerometer and gyroscope information only. Data were collected for a single test participant (21-year-old female) at four different treadmill speeds and used to validate the estimation results for three filter variations with respect to a Vicon optical motion-capture system. The knee flexion angle filtering algorithms resulted in root-mean-square errors of approximately three degrees. The results of this study indicate estimation results that are within acceptable limits of five degrees for clinical gait analysis. Specifically, a complementary filter approach is effective for knee flexion angle estimation in running applications.
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.