ArticleScientific reports2025
DeepLabCut custom-trained model and the refinement function for gait analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Machine Learning to Automate the Analysis of an Olfactory Habituation-Dishabituation Task in Mice.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Markerless Motion Capture for Human Movement Estimation Using Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
- Topology-aware validation of 3D skeleton kinematics for athletic movement classification using AthletePose3D.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Development of a deep learning-based grid walking test for assessing post-stroke motor function in mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Sensorimotor incongruence during walking using delayed visual feedback.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Optical Sensor-Based Approaches in Obesity Detection: A Literature Review of Gait Analysis, Pose Estimation, and Human Voxel Modeling.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Use of Technologies for the Acquisition and Processing Strategies for Motion Data Analysis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Markerless Motion Analysis Using New Digital Technology.Physical therapy research · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current gold standard for the study of human movement is the marker-based motion capture system that offers high precision but constrained by costs and controlled environments. Markerless pose estimation systems emerge as ecological alternatives, allowing unobtrusive data acquisition in natural settings. This study compares the performance of two popular markerless systems, OpenPose (OP) and DeepLabCut (DLC), in assessing locomotion. Forty healthy subjects walked along a 5 m walkway equipped with four force platforms and a camera. Gait parameters were obtained using OP "BODY_25" Pre-Trained model (OPPT), DLC "Model Zoo full_human" Pre-Trained model (DLCPT) and DLC Custom-Trained model (DLCCT), then compared with those acquired from the force platforms as reference system. Our results showed that DLCCT outperformed DLCPT and OPPT, highlighting the importance of leveraging DeepLabCut transfer learning to enhance the pose estimation performance with a custom-trained neural networks. Moreover, DLCCT, with the implementation of the DLC refinement function, offers the most promising markerless pose estimation solution for evaluating locomotion. Therefore, our data provide insights into the DLC training and refinement processes required to achieve optimal performance. This study proposes perspectives for clinicians and practitioners seeking accurate low-cost methods for movement assessment beyond laboratory settings.
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.