ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of marker-less 2D image-based methods for infant pose estimation.
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.
- The 5000 Babies Project: Early detection of cerebral palsy movement patterns in infants.Research square · 2026Article
- Automated neonatal sleep positioning assessment by video monitoring and machine learning.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Automatic pose estimation in newborn infants: Lessons from the Baby Grow study.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- A preregistered, open pipeline for early cerebral palsy risk assessment from infant videos.GigaScience · 2026Article
- Automatic infant 2D pose estimation from videos: Comparing seven deep neural network methods.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Neonatal pose estimation in the unaltered clinical environment with fusion of RGB, depth and IR images.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A Two-Dimensional Position and Motion Monitoring System for Preterm Infants Using a Fiber-Optic Pressure-Sensitive Mattress.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Towards universal early screening for cerebral palsy: a roadmap for automated General Movements Assessment.EClinicalMedicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study we compare the performance of available generic- and specialized infant-pose estimators for a video-based automated general movement assessment (GMA), and the choice of viewing angle for optimal recordings, i.e., conventional diagonal view used in GMA vs. top-down view. We used 4500 annotated video-frames from 75 recordings of infant spontaneous motor functions from 4 to 16 weeks. To determine which pose estimation method and camera angle yield the best pose estimation accuracy on infants in a GMA related setting, the error with respect to human annotations and the percentage of correct key-points (PCK) were computed and compared. The results show that the best performing generic model trained on adults, ViTPose, also performs best on infants. We see no improvement from using specific infant-pose estimators over the generic pose estimators on our infant dataset. However, when retraining a generic model on our data, there is a significant improvement in pose estimation accuracy. This indicates limited generalization capabilities of infant-pose estimators to other infant datasets, meaning that one should be careful when choosing infant pose estimators and using them on infant datasets which they were not trained on. The pose estimation accuracy obtained from the top-down view is significantly better than that obtained from the diagonal view (the standard view for GMA). This suggests that a top-down view should be included in recording setups for automated GMA research.
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.