ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2024
Validation of IMU against optical reference and development of open-source pipeline: proof of concept case report in a participant with transfemoral amputation fitted with a Percutaneous Osseointegrated Implant.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of IMU-derived lower-limb kinematics in transtibial amputees: A practical and accessible clinical workflow.PloS one · 2026Article
- Intelligent prediction of dynamic characteristics during exercise in patients with stroke.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- REEV SENSE IMUs for Gait Analysis in Stroke: A Clinical Study on Lower Limb Kinematics.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units for measuring gait kinematics in older adults across varying fall risk levels and walking speeds.BMC geriatrics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystems that capture motion under laboratory conditions limit validity in real-world environments. Mobile motion capture solutions such as Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) can progress our understanding of "real" human movement. IMU data must be validated in each application to interpret with clinical applicability; this is particularly true for diverse populations. Our IMU analysis method builds on the OpenSim IMU Inverse Kinematics toolkit integrating the Versatile Quaternion-based Filter and incorporates realistic constraints to the underlying biomechanical model. We validate our processing method against the reference standard optical motion capture in a case report with participants with transfemoral amputation fitted with a Percutaneous Osseointegrated Implant (POI) and without amputation walking over level ground. We hypothesis that by using this novel pipeline, we can validate IMU motion capture data, to a clinically acceptable degree.
resultsAverage RMSE (across all joints) between the two systems from the participant with a unilateral transfemoral amputation (TFA) on the amputated and the intact sides were 2.35° (IQR = 1.45°) and 3.59° (IQR = 2.00°) respectively. Equivalent results in the non-amputated participant were 2.26° (IQR = 1.08°). Joint level average RMSE between the two systems from the TFA ranged from 1.66° to 3.82° and from 1.21° to 5.46° in the non-amputated participant. In plane average RMSE between the two systems from the TFA ranged from 2.17° (coronal) to 3.91° (sagittal) and from 1.96° (transverse) to 2.32° (sagittal) in the non-amputated participant. Coefficients of Multiple Correlation (CMC) results between the two systems in the TFA ranged from 0.74 to > 0.99 and from 0.72 to > 0.99 in the non-amputated participant and resulted in 'excellent' similarity in each data set average, in every plane and at all joint levels. Normalized RMSE between the two systems from the TFA ranged from 3.40% (knee level) to 54.54% (pelvis level) and from 2.18% to 36.01% in the non-amputated participant.
conclusionsWe offer a modular processing pipeline that enables the addition of extra layers, facilitates changes to the underlying biomechanical model, and can accept raw IMU data from any vendor. We successfully validate the pipeline using data, for the first time, from a TFA participant using a POI and have proved our hypothesis.
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.