ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Interpretable skeleton-based movement profiles for formative feedback in school physical activity education.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Schools are an important setting for developing movement competence and supporting physical activity PA). Teachers provide feedback on how learners move, but individualized observation is difficult to sustain and document in large classes. Existing artificial intelligence (AI) systems typically classify an action or predict one competitive-sport score. These outputs do not identify the specific movement feature that a learner might adjust during practice. Methods: Using three public human action datasets (NTU RGB+D, Penn Action, and a FineGym subset), we benchmarked five representative skeleton-sequence models-recurrent (LSTM, GRU), graph-based (ST-GCN, CTR-GCN), and a Transformer-under a unified setting, and constructed four interpretable movement-profile indicators from joint coordinates and trajectories: movement amplitude, postural stability, left-right coordination, and temporal consistency. Each indicator was normalized against the same-class reference distribution, providing a relative, interpretable description rather than an expert-certified score. Results: Over five random seeds per dataset, independent-test macro-F1 ranged from 0.76 to 0.97; CTR-GCN obtained the highest mean on every dataset (NTU RGB+D 0.970 ± 0.003). Paired tests supported its advantage over all four comparators on NTU RGB+D and FineGym, whereas on Penn Action only the comparison with LSTM remained significant after correction. In the feature ablation, the full kinematic input increased macro-F1 from 0.925 to 0.936 on 3D skeletons (Holm-adjusted Conclusion: Skeleton-only movement profiles offer a privacy-reducing, teacher-in-the-loop approach to formative feedback that could support digital PA education and health promotion in schools. As a computational proof-of-concept evaluated on public datasets, the study does not include health or learning outcomes, age-specific K-12 reference distributions, or authentic-classroom validation. Calibration on curriculum-relevant data from children and validation against teacher or movement-expert ratings are required before the profiles can be interpreted as movement-quality feedback or used to support public-health claims.
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.