ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
From Wearable Sensor Networks to Markerless Motion Capture for Instrumental-Based Biomechanical Risk Assessment in Lifting Activities.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual material handling is one of the leading causes of work-related low-back disorders, and an accurate assessment of the biomechanical risk is essential to support prevention strategies. Despite workers' interest in wearable sensor networks for quantifying exposure metrics, these systems still present several limitations, including potential interference with natural movements and workplaces, and concerns about durability and cost-effectiveness. For these reasons, alternative motion capture methods are being explored. Among them, completely markerless (ML) technologies are being increasingly applied in ergonomics. This study aimed to compare a wearable sensor network and an ML system in the evaluation of lifting tasks, focusing on the variables and multipliers used to compute the recommended weight limit (RWL) and the lifting index (LI) according to the revised NIOSH lifting equation. We hypothesized that ML systems equipped with multiple cameras may provide reliable and consistent estimations of these kinematic variables, thereby improving risk assessments. We also assumed that these ML approaches could represent valuable input for training AI algorithms capable of automatically classifying the biomechanical risk level. Twenty-eight workers performed standardized lifts under three risk conditions. The results showed significant differences between wearable sensor networks and ML systems for most measures, except at a low risk (LI = 1). Nevertheless, ML consistently showed a closer agreement with reference benchmarks and a lower variability. In terms of the automatic classification performance, ML-based kinematic variables yielded accuracy levels comparable to those obtained with the wearable system. These findings highlight the potential of ML approaches to deliver accurate, repeatable, and cost-effective biomechanical risk assessments, particularly in demanding lifting tasks.
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.