ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of 3D ankle kinematics between minimal inertial measurement units configuration and optical motion capture system under diverse walking conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of three-dimensional ankle kinematics is essential for advancing biomechanical analyses and informing potential clinical applications. While optical motion capture systems (OMCs) are considered the gold standard, their high cost and limited portability restrict their use outside the laboratory. Inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer a more practical alternative; however, concerns remain regarding their validity and reliability in diverse walking conditions. This study evaluated the agreement and repeatability of IMU-derived ankle kinematics relative to OMCs across three walking surfaces: level ground, inward wedge, and outward wedge. Ankle movements in the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes were analyzed using a minimal sensor configuration. Moderate to high agreement and consistent repeatability were observed in the sagittal and transverse planes, particularly during level and inward wedge floor walking. Conversely, the frontal plane demonstrated limited agreement under wedged conditions, likely because of complex multisegmental foot dynamics and reference frame misalignment from static calibration. Despite these limitations, consistent repeatability across conditions supports the use of IMUs for tracking ankle kinematics outside the laboratory. These findings suggest the preliminary applicability of IMUs as a functional tool for interpreting ankle kinematics outside the laboratory.
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.