ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2026
EMBC Special Issue: Calibrated Uncertainty for Trustworthy Clinical Gait Analysis Using Probabilistic Multiview Markerless Motion Capture.
Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluates the calibration and accuracy of a probabilistic MMMC method. Video-based human movement analysis holds potential for movement assessment in clinical practice and research. However, the clinical implementation and trust of multi-view markerless motion capture (MMMC) require that, in addition to being accurate, these systems produce reliable confidence intervals to indicate how accurate they are for any individual. Building on our prior work utilizing variational inference to estimate estimate biomechanical variables against clinical gold-standards.
methodsWe analyzed data from 68 participants across two institutions, validating the model against an instrumented walkway and standard marker-based motion capture. We measured the calibration of the confidence intervals using the Expected Calibration Error (ECE).
resultsthe model demonstrated reliable calibration, yielding ECE values generally $<\!0.1$ for both step and stride length and bias-corrected gait kinematics. We observed a median step and stride length error of $\sim\!16$ mm and $\sim\!12$ mm respectively, with median bias-corrected kinematic errors ranging from $1.5^{\circ }$ to $3.8^{\circ }$ across lower extremity joints. Consistent with the calibrated ECE, the magnitude of the model's predicted uncertainty correlated strongly with observed error measures.
conclusionThese findings indicate that, as designed, the probabilistic model reconstruction quantifies epistemic uncertainty, shown by low absolute error and calibrated uncertainty. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings highlight the potential to identify unreliable outputs without the need for concurrent ground-truth instrumentation through the use of this probabilistic model.
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.