ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of Plug-in Gait and CGM2.3 models reveals systematic differences in joint kinematics and kinetics.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared two widely used biomechanical models-Plug-in Gait (PiG) and Conventional Gait Model 2.3 (CGM2.3)-during overground walking (WALK) and single-leg squats (SLS) in 24 healthy adults. Data was collected using a 20-camera Vicon system and force plates. Static trials were analyzed with medial knee and ankle markers to align joint axes across models. Kinematic and kinetic outputs were compared using root mean square differences (RMSD) and statistical parametric mapping (SPM) paired t-tests. During WALK, PiG produced greater internal rotation at the knee (RMSD 17.8°, p < 0.001) and hip (RMSD 5.0°, p < 0.001), and smaller sagittal-plane flexion angles (RMSD 2.6° knee, 2.3° hip) compared with CGM2.3. In single-leg squats, these discrepancies increased to 29.1° and 9.0°, respectively, with sagittal-plane differences of 4.4° at the knee and 5.1° at the hip. CGM2.3 yielded higher knee flexion moments (31% in WALK, 104% in SLS), while PiG produced higher frontal-plane knee moments (28% and 89%). The differences were most pronounced at deeper flexion angles. These results demonstrate that biomechanical outcomes differ systematically between models, emphasizing the impact of model selection on joint kinematics and kinetics in human movement 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.