ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Reliability, agreement and variability of a markerless computer vision algorithm for equine gait analysis under field conditions.
Article in Equine veterinary journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of a handheld smartphone markerless gait-analysis tool using an estimated groundline in horses.Equine veterinary journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputer vision-based algorithms offer accessible alternatives for equine gait analysis but require thorough assessment under diverse conditions.
objectivesTo evaluate a proprietary vision-based algorithm's reliability in measuring vertical displacement signals (VDS) at the eye, withers and croup, alongside groundline estimation, for horses trotting on straight lines and circles under field conditions. STUDY
designCross-sectional comparative study evaluating agreement, variability and reliability of a markerless computer vision algorithm.
methodsWe obtained 67 handheld iPhone recordings from 37 horses. A vision-based algorithm and independent manual annotation produced 2D anatomical keypoints on all frames of the recordings, which were processed to estimate a groundline and compute VDS and stride-based maxima (Maxdiff) and minima (Mindiff) vertical differences. Mean signed error (MSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare detected and annotated data.
resultsThe frame level vertical keypoint accuracy was 4.5 mm (eye), 5.5 mm (croup) and 11.8 mm (withers), and the manual annotation error was averaged at 2.7 mm. At the stride level (n = 1556), the overall mean absolute errors (MAEs) for both Maxdiff and Mindiff were 4.3 mm. The eye keypoint exhibited the lowest errors (2.9 mm Maxdiff, 3.0 mm Mindiff), while the withers error was 5.5 mm for both Maxdiff and Mindiff, and the croup showed 4.3 mm (Maxdiff) and 4.4 mm (Mindiff). Trial-level (n = 67) analysis, with below optimal number of strides per trial in this study, revealed lower overall absolute differences (Eye: 2.3 mm, Withers: 3.7 mm, Croup: 2.7 mm), indicating consistent performance across multiple strides. Subjective lameness scoring aligned with objective measures with some variation. MAIN LIMITATIONS: Groundline estimation accuracy was stress-tested on treadmill data in another study. Further clinical comparison with established gait analysis systems is recommended.
conclusionsThe algorithm robustly measured vertical displacements under varied conditions.
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.