ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Topology-aware validation of 3D skeleton kinematics for athletic movement classification using AthletePose3D.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sports-specific three-dimensional pose data provide an opportunity to characterize the dynamics of athletic movement through joint trajectories and their temporal variation. This study investigated whether interpretable kinematic representations derived from 3D skeleton sequences can distinguish athletic movement classes and how their performance compares with topology-aware graph representations. Methods: AthletePose3D data from five subjects were analyzed using 18 movement labels derived from the available sequence annotations. H36M-17 pose sequences were root-centered and scale-normalized, and movement was represented using sequence-level features describing joint position, spatial range, velocity, acceleration, motion magnitude, and body-region relationships. These features characterize observable movement dynamics relevant to the study of coordinated human motion, but were not used to infer physiological mechanisms, injury risk, or causal biomechanics. Results: Interpretable kinematic representations consistently provided stronger movement-classification performance than the evaluated graph-based representations. The original class-balanced Random Forest achieved a mean macro-F1 of 0.854, and subsequent evaluation with a stronger tree-based classifier further improved performance, whereas fixed and adaptive graph approaches remained below the leading kinematic models. Model attribution indicated that discriminative information was distributed unevenly across body regions, with greater contributions from the lower limbs and selected upper-limb features, consistent with the multi-segment coordination required by the athletic movements represented in the dataset. Robustness and subject-domain-shift analyses further showed that classification performance depended on pose completeness and subject-action coverage. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that normalized 3D skeletal kinematics can provide an interpretable representation of athletic movement dynamics for computational movement classification. The results support the use of pose-derived kinematic features for studying patterns of human movement while remaining distinct from direct physiological measurement or causal biomechanical inference.
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.