Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40204781›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparison of marker-less 2D image-based methods for infant pose estimation.

Lennart Jahn, Sarah Flügge, Dajie Zhang, Luise Poustka, Sven Bölte, Florentin Wörgötter, Peter B Marschik, Tomas Kulvicius

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

8 authors.

Lennart JahnChild and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Göttingen; German Center for Child and Adolescent Health (DZKJ), Leibniz Science Campus Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Str. 5, Göttingen, Germany. lennart.jahn@phys.uni-goettingen.de.
Sarah FlüggeChild and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Göttingen; German Center for Child and Adolescent Health (DZKJ), Leibniz Science Campus Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Str. 5, Göttingen, Germany.
Dajie ZhangDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Luise PoustkaDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sven BölteCenter of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (KIND), Department of Women's and Children's Health, Center for Psychiatry Research, Karolinska Institutet & Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Florentin WörgötterUniversity of Göttingen, III Institute of Physics - Biophysics, Göttingen, Germany.
Peter B MarschikChild and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Göttingen; German Center for Child and Adolescent Health (DZKJ), Leibniz Science Campus Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Str. 5, Göttingen, Germany.
Tomas KulviciusChild and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Göttingen; German Center for Child and Adolescent Health (DZKJ), Leibniz Science Campus Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Str. 5, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedPostureFemaleHumansInfantMaleMovementVideo RecordingDeep neural networksFull body pose estimationGMAInfant motion analysis

Identifiers

PMID40204781
PMCPMC11982382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.