Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740080›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Evaluation Protocols and Validation for Cameras in Indoor Healthcare Monitoring.

Amirhossein Dadashzadeh, Jingjing Liu, Qianhui Men, Qiushuo Cheng, Kirsty Scott, Lisa Alcock, Ian Craddock, Majid Mirmehdi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amirhossein DadashzadehSchool of Engineering Mathematics and Technology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.
Jingjing LiuSchool of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.
Qianhui MenSchool of Engineering Mathematics and Technology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.
Qiushuo ChengSchool of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.
Kirsty ScottTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-7931-1424
Lisa AlcockTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8364-9803
Ian CraddockSchool of Engineering Mathematics and Technology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.
Majid MirmehdiSchool of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1QU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6478-1403

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/X036146/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMonitoring, PhysiologicAlgorithmsHumansPostureReproducibility of Resultscamera evaluationdeployment factorsdepth accuracyhuman pose estimationindoor healthcare monitoringmetrological validationMPJPERGBD cameras

Identifiers

PMID42740080
PMCPMC13568443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.