ArticleEquine veterinary journal2026
Validation of a handheld smartphone markerless gait-analysis tool using an estimated groundline in horses.
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.
- Smartphone-Based Technologies in Equine Sports Medicine: Supporting Athlete Management-A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA handheld smartphone-based computer vision algorithm (RealHorse® [RH]) offers accessible alternatives for equine gait analysis but requires validation against a gold-standard three-dimensional multicamera optical motion capture system (Qualisys® [QS]).
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy and precision of RH in measuring vertical displacement signals (VDS) at the eye, withers, back and croup in horses trotting on a straight line and on a circle. STUDY
designCross-sectional comparative validation study of a markerless computer vision algorithm.
methodsFifty-nine horses were recorded while trotting on a straight line and 24 were lunged on a circle. RH detected two-dimensional anatomical keypoints on each frame, which were used to estimate a dynamic groundline and compute ground relative VDS with stride-based difference in maxima (Maxdiff) and minima (Mindiff). QS provided synchronous ground-relative VDS reference values. Agreement was evaluated using mean signed error, mean absolute error and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsOn the straight line (n = 2620 strides), the pooled stride-level MAE for Maxdiff and Mindiff was 3.8 mm. Keypoint-specific errors were 5.1 mm (eye), 4.3 mm (withers) and 3.0 mm (croup). On the circle (n = 2419 strides), pooled stride-level error increased to 5.5 mm. Trial-level analysis (n = 58 trials) showed much lower errors: 1.4 mm for both eye and withers and 1.1 mm for croup. On the circle (n = 24 trials), trial-level errors were higher, with 2.8 mm for the eye, 1.8 mm for the withers and 3.3 mm for the croup. The back keypoint consistently showed the lowest errors across both stride and trial levels. MAIN LIMITATIONS: RH measurements of the croup Mindiff during circling resulted in higher values and showed the largest error.
conclusionsRH measured vertical displacement of all keypoints with high accuracy and precision (trial-level MAE 1.1-1.4 mm straight, 1.8-3.3 mm circle), supporting its use for equine gait analysis.
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.