ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Estimating Compressive and Shear Forces at L5-S1: Exploring the Effects of Load Weight, Asymmetry, and Height Using Optical and Inertial Motion Capture Systems.
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 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.
- Integrating Evaluation into Exoskeleton Systems: A Model-Based Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A hybrid framework combining adaptive graph learning and global temporal attention for skeleton-based action recognition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study assesses the agreement of compressive and shear force estimates at the L5-S1 joint using inertial motion capture (IMC) within a musculoskeletal simulation model during manual lifting tasks, compared against a top-down optical motion capture (OMC)-based model. Thirty-six participants completed lifting and lowering tasks while wearing a modified Plug-in Gait marker set for the OMC and a full-body IMC set-up consisting of 17 sensors. The study focused on tasks with variable load weights, lifting heights, and trunk rotation angles. It was found that the IMC system consistently underestimated the compressive forces by an average of 34% (975.16 N) and the shear forces by 30% (291.77 N) compared with the OMC system. A critical observation was the discrepancy in joint angle measurements, particularly in trunk flexion, where the IMC-based model underestimated the angles by 10.92-11.19 degrees on average, with the extremes reaching up to 28 degrees. This underestimation was more pronounced in tasks involving greater flexion, notably impacting the force estimates. Additionally, this study highlights significant differences in the distance from the spine to the box during these tasks. On average, the IMC system showed an 8 cm shorter distance on the
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.