ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluation Protocols and Validation for Cameras in Indoor Healthcare Monitoring.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Camera-based monitoring systems are increasingly adopted in healthcare settings for the continuous assessment of patient movement and activities. However, their technical performance under real-world indoor conditions remains insufficiently characterised, preventing appropriate selection when choosing cameras for clinical or home adoption and reproducibility. Existing validation studies typically assess either device metrological performance or algorithm accuracy in isolation, and often do not systematically account for practical deployment factors, such as lighting variability, occlusions, and camera positioning. To address this, we present two technical validation protocols that evaluate the same cameras at both the metrological and pose-estimation levels under systematically controlled deployment conditions rarely addressed together in prior work: the first evaluates the metrological performance of RGB and RGBD cameras, and the second assesses their use in supporting human pose estimation, validated using state-of-the-art pose estimators. The proposed protocols systematically assess five cameras (four RGBD and one RGB) under controlled variations in lighting, camera height, viewing angle, and occlusion level, within representative indoor scenarios. The experimental results show that metrological performance varies substantially across cameras, with depth bias at 5 m ranging from ∼10 mm to over 1400 mm depending on the device. For 2D pose estimation, all cameras achieve broadly comparable accuracy (mean mAP between ~78% and ~90%) across cameras and estimators, whereas 3D reconstruction error differs markedly across devices (MPJPE ranging from 104 mm to 365 mm), closely reflecting underlying depth sensing quality. Environmental factors have a camera- and estimator-dependent effect on 3D performance, while camera mounting height has minimal influence within the evaluated range. This work provides evidence-based guidance for the selection and deployment of cameras in healthcare monitoring applications, addressing an important gap in current technical validation practice.
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.