Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38868012›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Calibrationless monocular vision musculoskeletal simulation during gait.

Ryo Ueno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Ryo UenoDepartment of Research and Development, ORGO, 2-7 Odori W18, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 061-1136, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With computer vision technology and prediction of ground reaction forces (GRF), a previous study performed markerless motion capture and musculoskeletal simulation with two smartphones (OpenCap). A recent approach can reconstruct 3D human motion from a single video without calibration and it may further simplify the motion capture process. However it has not been combined with musculoskeletal simulation and the validity is unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the musculoskeletal simulation using a monocular vision approach. An open-source dataset that contains motion capture and video data during gait from 10 healthy participants was used. Human motion reconstruction with the skinned human (SMPL) model was performed on each video. Virtual marker data was generated by extracting the position data from the SMPL skin vertices. Inverse kinematics, GRF prediction (only for monocular vision approach), inverse dynamics and static optimization were performed using a musculoskeletal model for experimental motion capture data and the generated virtual markers from videos. Mean absolute errors (MAE) between motion capture based and monocular vision based simulation outcomes were calculated. The MAE were 8.4° for joint angles, 5.0 % bodyweight for GRF, 1.1 % bodyweight*height for joint moments and 0.11 for estimated muscle activations from 16 muscles. The entire MAE was larger but some were comparable to OpenCap. Using the monocular vision approach, motion capture and musculoskeletal simulation can be done with no preparations and is beneficial for clinicians to quantify the daily gait assessment.

Indexed as

Computer visionMusculoskeletal simulationPose estimation

Identifiers

PMID38868012
PMCPMC11168395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.