↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of Functional and Predictive Methods to Calculate the Hip Joint Center in Young Non-pathologic Asymptomatic Adults with Dual Fluoroscopy as a Reference Standard

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Biomedical Engineering, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Accuracy of Functional and Predictive Methods to Calculate the Hip Joint Center in Young Non-pathologic Asymptomatic Adults with Dual Fluoroscopy as a Reference Standard
Published in
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10439-015-1522-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niccolo M. Fiorentino, Michael J. Kutschke, Penny R. Atkins, K. Bo Foreman, Ashley L. Kapron, Andrew E. Anderson

Abstract

Predictions from biomechanical models of gait may be sensitive to joint center locations. Most often, the hip joint center (HJC) is derived from locations of reflective markers adhered to the skin. Here, predictive techniques use regression equations of pelvic anatomy to estimate the HJC, whereas functional methods track motion of markers placed at the pelvis and femur during a coordinated motion. Skin motion artifact may introduce errors in the estimate of HJC for both techniques. Quantifying the accuracy of these methods is an area of open investigation. In this study, we used dual fluoroscopy (DF) (a dynamic X-ray imaging technique) and three-dimensional reconstructions from computed tomography images, to measure HJC locations in vivo. Using dual fluoroscopy as the reference standard, we then assessed the accuracy of three predictive and two functional methods. Eleven non-pathologic subjects were imaged with DF and reflective skin marker motion capture. Additionally, DF-based solutions generated virtual markers placed on bony landmarks, which were input to the predictive and functional methods to determine if estimates of the HJC improved. Using skin markers, functional methods had better mean agreement with the HJC measured by DF (11.0 ± 3.3 mm) than predictive methods (18.1 ± 9.5 mm); estimates from functional and predictive methods improved when using the DF-based solutions (1.3 ± 0.9 and 17.5 ± 8.6 mm, respectively). The Harrington method was the best predictive technique using both skin markers (13.2 ± 6.5 mm) and DF-based solutions (10.6 ± 2.5 mm). The two functional methods had similar accuracy using skin makers (11.1 ± 3.6 and 10.8 ± 3.2 mm) and DF-based solutions (1.2 ± 0.8 and 1.4 ± 1.0 mm). Overall, functional methods were superior to predictive methods for HJC estimation. However, the improvements observed when using the DF-based solutions suggest that skin motion artifact is a large source of error for the functional methods.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 26%
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 41 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 12%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#21,157,205
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#2
of 2 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,597
of 397,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,952 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.