ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
Static Precision of Instrumented Pointers for Anatomical Landmark Calibration in CAST-Like Motion Analysis Measurements.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Calibrated Anatomical Systems Technique is an integral part of modern motion analysis systems. However, the calibration of anatomical landmarks is shown to have large variations in intra- and inter-examiner accuracy, which can result in both offset type errors or changes in the characteristics of joint angles and other parameters. This paper is the first instalment in a series of articles aiming to characterize and minimize all of the different factors contributing to these inconsistent calibrations by examining and optimizing the performance of the instrumented pointers used for landmark calibration. A complete characterisation of all aspects of instrumented pointer precision has not been done before.
methodsThis paper focuses on examining four different pointers used with an optical OptiTrack motion capture system to establish the expected variability when measuring pointer tip location. Four different pointers were measured at three different locations within the motion capture system's measurement volume, in a distinct orientation at each of these location.
resultsA single stationary marker can be measured with less than 0.06 mm variation with 95% confidence, whilst the variation of the tip of a stationary pointer is 0.2 mm. If the pointer markers are located closer than what the motion capture system is able to resolve, these variations can more than double, but pointer geometry has limited effect on precision apart from this.
conclusionThanks to improvement of motion capture technology in the last 20 years, static precision is already excellent. Robustness of tracking can likely be improved, but it's effect on overall pointer precision would be minimal and likely inconsequential.
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.