ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2024
Assessment of the Accuracy of a Deep Learning Algorithm- and Video-based Motion Capture System in Estimating Snatch Kinematics.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- IMU- and Vision-Based Measurement Techniques for Joint Kinematics: A Narrative Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In weightlifting, quantitative kinematic analysis is essential for evaluating snatch performance. While marker-based (MB) approaches are commonly used, they are impractical for training or competitions. Markerless video-based (VB) systems utilizing deep learning-based pose estimation algorithms could address this issue. This study assessed the comparability and applicability of VB systems in obtaining snatch kinematics by comparing the outcomes to an MB reference system. 21 weightlifters (15 Male, 6 Female) performed 2-3 snatches at 65%, 75%, and 80% of their one-repetition maximum. Snatch kinematics were analyzed using an MB (Vicon Nexus) and VB (Contemplas along with Theia3D) system. Analysis of 131 trials revealed that corresponding lower limb joint center positions of the systems on average differed by 4.7 ± 1.2 cm, and upper limb joint centers by 5.7 ± 1.5 cm. VB and MB lower limb joint angles showed highest agreement in the frontal plane (root mean square difference (RMSD): 11.2 ± 5.9°), followed by the sagittal plane (RMSD: 13.6 ± 4.7°). Statistical Parametric Mapping analysis revealed significant differences throughout most of the movement for all degrees of freedom. Maximum extension angles and velocities during the second pull displayed significant differences (p < .05) for the lower limbs. Our data showed significant differences in estimated kinematics between both systems, indicating a lack of comparability. These differences are likely due to differing models and assumptions, rather than measurement accuracy. However, given the rapid advancements of neural network-based approaches, it holds promise to become a suitable alternative to MB systems in weightlifting analysis.
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.