ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Inverse Dynamics Meets Markerless Motion Capture during Standing: Concurrent Validation of Center of Mass and Center of Pressure Estimations.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
Abstract
introductionObservational balance assessment is frequently used clinically but remains subjective and limited in accuracy. Although laboratory-based methods provide precise biomechanical measurements, their need for specialized equipment and expertise limits clinical use. This study presents a multi-view, open-source markerless motion capture system (MMCS) using OpenPose to identify body landmarks, enabling objective balance assessment via center-of-mass (COM) and inverse-dynamics-based center-of-pressure (COP) estimation.
methodsThe proposed MMCS was experimentally validated. Twelve non-disabled individuals performed five balance tasks (quiet standing on hard and soft surfaces with eyes open and closed, and a weight shift task) against marker-based and force plate measurements. This study also investigated the effect of biomechanical modelling (single-, three-, six-, and eight-segment models) on COM and COP estimations.
resultsUsing MMCS, COM trajectories estimated from markerless data showed very high agreement with the marker-based gold standard across models (Pearson's correlation coefficient: CC > 0.90). The COP estimated via the eight-segment model and inverse dynamics showed the highest agreement with force plate data (CC = 0.95-0.98; root-mean-square error: RMSE = 2.2-8.5 mm) in the anterior-posterior direction. Across all models, the anterior-posterior direction showed higher correlations than the medial-lateral direction, except for the weight shift task.
conclusionIncreasing number of segments, improved CC and RMSE across tasks, confirming the value of multi-segment modelling for COM and COP estimation when using MMCS. These findings demonstrate that our MMCS can achieve agreement consistent with laboratory-based systems for balance assessment. By reducing reliance on specialized laboratories while maintaining biomechanical validity, this framework supports balance evaluation in rehabilitation clinics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42542510What 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.