ArticlePeerJ2026
Comparison of peak joint angles from non-concurrent squat and upper-limb assessment using a markerless Kinotek system and a marker-based Vicon system.
Article in PeerJ, 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
Background: Three-dimensional motion capture systems are essential for assessing human movement patterns, optimizing performance, and monitoring recovery. Marker-based systems are considered the gold standard but are often impractical in clinical settings due to their complexity. Markerless systems, such as Kinotek, offer a portable and user-friendly alternative. This study compared peak joint angles measured from non-concurrent trials using the Kinotek markerless system with a single-camera setup and the Vicon marker-based system. Methods: Twenty-one healthy adults performed shoulder flexion, shoulder abduction, squat, and trunk rotation movements. Movements were captured using the Kinotek markerless system and a Vicon marker-based system in separate trials in randomized immediate succession. Paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests compared differences in peak joint angles between the two systems, while Pearson's (r) or Kendall's Tau-b (τb) correlation coefficients assessed the relationship between systems. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC(A,5)) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) evaluated within-system repeatability across five repetitions. Results: No significant differences between marker-based and markerless systems were observed for hip and shoulder flexion. Significant differences between systems were found for knee flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, trunk rotation, and shoulder abduction. Moderate correlations were found for left knee flexion (τb = 0.62) and left shoulder abduction (r = 0.58), fair correlations were found for right knee flexion (τb = 0.42), and weak or negligible correlations were found for the other assessed movements. Kinotek demonstrated lower repeatability (ICC range = -0.013-0.908) than the Vicon system (ICC range = 0.324-0.996), with good repeatability for Kinotek in ankle dorsiflexion and shoulder abduction. Conclusions: The Kinotek system demonstrated limited agreement with the Vicon system for peak joint angle measurements, with moderate or fair correlations observed in 3 of the 12 investigated variables. Significant differences between systems were identified, suggesting that the two systems should not be used interchangeably for all kinematic assessments, and highlights the need for further optimization of portable single-camera markerless technology. While the Kinotek system offers practical advantages for movement evaluation in clinical and field-based environments where traditional marker-based may be impractical, further methodological refinement and validation against gold-standard reference methods are needed before broader application in biomechanical analysis. This study adds to the growing literature on markerless motion capture by identifying areas of limited reliability alongside its practical advantages, supporting its continued development as a more accessible approach to 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.