ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of monocular human pose estimation models for clinical movement analysis.
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 9 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
9 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
- Toward Automation of Motor Assessments in Stroke: Proof-of-Concept Model to Interpret Balance and Gait in Patients With Stroke.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026Article
- Human Pose Estimation for Real-World Deployment: A Review of Methods, Systems, and Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Optimizing camera placement in multi-view markerless motion capture: a validation study against gold-standard kinematics for static and dynamic tasks.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- A Movement Description Language for Functional Training Exercise Analysis.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- A pilot study of a mobile application for postural analysis and training support in Shotokan Karate.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Gait assessment using a 2D video-based pose estimation app in comparison to a markerless motion capture system in subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee - a pilot study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Validating Single-Camera Pose Estimation Against Multi-Camera Motion Capture for Accessible Biomechanical Assessment.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2026Article
- Validation of markerless human pose estimation methods for clinical assessment of elbow range of motion.PloS one · 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
Recent advances in computer vision and learning-based approaches have led to the emergence of markerless human pose estimation as a promising alternative to established motion capturing methods. Markerless methods offer several advantages, including low hardware requirements, affordability, fast setup, and reduced post-processing efforts. However, the accuracy of these methods and the speed at which poses are inferred tend to be lower when compared with marker-based optical motion capturing, which might restrict their range of applications. This study assessed the accuracy, precision, and inference speed of 11 different open source monocular markerless human pose estimators. For this we created Physio2.2M, a dataset comprising 2.2 million RGB frames of 25 unimpaired participants engaged in physical exercise paired with the corresponding ground truth measurements from an optical motion capture system using passive markers. The mean per joint position error between markerless human pose estimators and marker-based optical motion capturing was found to be in the range of 72 to 122 mm in 2D within the image plane and 146 to 249 mm in 3D when considering depth. The knee flexion angle was measured with a mean absolute error of [Formula: see text] in 2D and [Formula: see text] in 3D. The elbow flexion angle was measured with a mean absolute error of [Formula: see text] in 2D and [Formula: see text] in 3D. Some of the investigated 2D human pose estimators can achieve accuracies comparable to visual assessments. The inference speed of direct pose estimators ranged between 25 and 200 FPS and 2D-to-3D lifting methods achieved inference speeds of 117 to 9341 FPS. The accuracy and precision varied greatly between different pose estimators and between different image dimensions. This study offers a valuable comparison on the performance of different pose estimators in applications involving physical activities and highlights current limitations.
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.