ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Validation of a Markerless Non-Contact Gait Analysis System for Three-Dimensional Gait Kinematics in Patients with Ankle Injuries: A Concurrent Comparison Study with the Vicon Three-Dimensional Motion Capture System.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
(1) Background: This study validated the accuracy of a markerless gait analysis system, Foot4D, against the Vicon 3D motion capture system in 60 patients with ankle injuries. (2) Methods: Synchronized gait data were collected using both systems while participants walked on a treadmill at self-selected speeds. The Foot4D system employs a Vision Transformer (ViT-H/16) encoder and the SKEL parametric model for markerless 3D pose reconstruction from multi-view depth cameras. Spatiotemporal gait parameters and lower limb 3D kinematics (hip, knee, and ankle) were compared using ICC, Bland-Altman analysis, and MAE. (3) Results: All 12 spatiotemporal parameters showed good-to-excellent agreement (ICC = 0.738-0.999, MAE = 0.009-0.108 m/s). Agreement for joint kinematics decreased from proximal to distal: hip (mean ICC ≈ 0.947, MAE 1.16-1.52°), knee (mean ICC ≈ 0.921, MAE 1.17-1.75°), and ankle (mean ICC ≈ 0.839). Ankle sagittal plane ROM demonstrated good agreement (ICC = 0.857-0.911), while the frontal (ICC ≈ 0.807) and transverse (ICC ≈ 0.816-0.835) planes were at the lower bound of good agreement, with a -3.19° systematic bias in the injured ankle sagittal plane. (4) Conclusions: Foot4D is clinically reliable for spatiotemporal and proximal joint kinematic assessment, though ankle multiplanar motion measurement warrants further algorithmic optimization.
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.