ArticlePloS one2026
Validation of markerless human pose estimation methods for clinical assessment of elbow range of motion.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Markerless On-Device Detection of Compensatory Movement Patterns in Upper-Limb Rehabilitation Exercises from Monocular RGB Video: A Validation Study in Healthy Adults.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians rely on the assessment of joint range of motion to determine the necessity of clinical interventions and to track rehabilitation progress. They often perform visual assessments of these joint angles due to limited time for longer but more accurate methods. Markerless monocular human pose estimation methods could help reduce the workload of physicians in clinical practice, allow patients to conduct regular assessments remotely, and be used to provide reliable assessments in the absence of expert raters, but they have not been validated extensively on clinical populations. We measured the elbow flexion and extension ranges of motion of 46 patients with shoulder and elbow pathologies. These values were assessed by RTMW and HSMR, two different monocular pose estimation methods, and an experienced physician who performed visual assessments. A state-of-the-art passive-marker optical motion capture system was used as the reference system. For elbow flexion, HSMR outperformed visual assessment. HSMR had a higher concordance correlation coefficient of 0.92 and a lower minimal detectable change of 6.74° as determined by a concordance analysis and a linear mixed-effects model. Conversely, for elbow extension, visual assessment outperformed both markerless methods. RTMW was the best-performing markerless method with a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.83 and a minimal detectable change of 7.93°. Thus, HSMR represented a viable alternative to visual assessment for measuring elbow flexion range of motion in a clinical population, but neither RTMW nor HSMR offered an improvement over visual assessment for measuring elbow extension range of motion.
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.