ArticlePloS one2026
Validity of multiple human pose estimation tools for measuring knee impact angles in video-captured falls of older adults.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Falls are a major cause of injury in older adults. Although bending the knees during a fall has been shown to reduce stress on the hip, knee motion during falls is not well understood because laboratory fall studies are limited by safety concerns and marker occlusion in motion capture systems. AI-based pose estimation may help overcome these challenges, but its accuracy in measuring joint angles during falls has not yet been validated. We evaluated three pose estimation models (OpenPose, VideoPose3D, WHAM) for analyzing knee kinematics in video-captured falls. A total of 121 videos of 13 older adults (64.0 ± 5.9 years) falling sideways, utilizing diverse fall strategies (knee block, stick-like, tuck-and-roll), in a lab setting were analyzed. Each model generated time series of knee angles from the videos, from which knee flexion angles at ground impact were calculated and compared to ground truth data from a motion capture system. Agreement with the ground truth was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and bias, analyzed across viewing planes (sagittal vs. frontal) and leg sides (impact vs. opposite). WHAM demonstrated the highest accuracy (MAPE:13.61 ± 10.55%) with minimal bias (<10%), consistently performing well across all views and leg sides. OpenPose performed similar to WHAM in the sagittal view (MAPE:14.38 ± 9.63%) but poorly in the frontal view (MAPE:71.33 ± 17.24%) due to substantial underestimation (bias:-71.33 ± 17.24%). VideoPose3D showed poor accuracy across all conditions (MAPE:39.09 ± 20.54%). WHAM also characterized differences in knee flexion kinematics between fall strategies (e.g., least vs. most knee flexion) but did not fully reproduce side-specific kinematic differences between legs, particularly for tuck-and-roll falls. This is the first study to validate pose estimation algorithms for estimating knee impact angles from video-captured falls in older adults. Future work should fine-tune WHAM using fall-specific data to further improve its performance in tracking body movements during falls.
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.