ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparison of Marker- and Markerless-Derived Lower Body Three-Dimensional Gait Kinematics in Typically Developing Children.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Validations and applications of markerless motion capture using OpenCap: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Verification of Markerless Gait Analysis: Multi-Camera and Single-Camera Approaches in Comparison to Marker-Based Gait Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
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
backgroundMarker-based motion capture is the current gold standard for three-dimensional (3D) gait analysis. This is a highly technical analysis that is time-consuming, and marker application can trigger anxiety in children. One potential solution is to use markerless camera systems instead. The objective of this study was to compare 3D lower limb gait kinematics in children using both marker-based and markerless motion capture methods.
methodsTen typically developing children (age 6-13 yrs) completed five barefoot walks at a self-selected speed. A 10-camera marker-based system (Oqus, Qualisys) and a 7-camera markerless system (Miqus, Qualisys) captured synchronised gait data at 85 Hz. Generalised Additive Mixed Models were fitted to the data to identify the random effects of measurement systems, age, and time across the gait cycle. The root-mean-square difference (RMSD) was used to compare the differences between systems.
resultsSignificant interactions and differences were observed between the marker-based and markerless systems for most joint angles and planes of motion, particularly with regard to time and age.
conclusionsDespite differences across all kinematic profiles, the RMSD in this study was comparable to previously published results. Alternative model definitions and kinematic crosstalk in both systems likely explain the differences. Age differences were not consistent across joint levels, suggesting a larger sample size is required to determine how maturation may affect markerless tracking. Further investigation is required to understand the deviations and differences between systems before implementing markerless technology in a clinical setting.
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.