Back

Shared Strides: Operational feasibility of community-based biomechanics data collection in knee osteoarthritis

McCloskey, R. C.; Qualter, J. M.; Gruber, A.; Leapley, S.; Qiu, P.; Tian, Z.; Vincent, H. K.; Costello, K. E.

2026-04-29 orthopedics
10.64898/2026.04.20.26351135 medRxiv
Show abstract

Biomechanics studies using traditional optical motion capture have been limited by small, homogeneous sample sizes and a focus on single movements, restricting the ability to capture clinically relevant adaptations across daily tasks. These limitations are particularly consequential in heterogeneous musculoskeletal conditions such as knee osteoarthritis (OA), where variability in demographic and clinical characteristics necessitates large, representative samples to identify patient-specific biomechanical intervention targets. Markerless motion capture enables faster, high-throughput data collection and offers the potential for community-based assessments; however, its feasibility of use in clinical populations across diverse tasks remains unclear. This study evaluated the feasibility of community-based, high-throughput markerless biomechanics data collection in individuals with knee OA. Participants (n = 85) completed a series of activities of daily living using a portable markerless motion capture system deployed across two community-based and two on-campus sites. Feasibility was assessed using timing metrics related to research operations (transit, setup, calibration, breakdown), participant workflow (consent, questionnaires, motion capture), and task-specific durations. No significant differences in timing metrics were observed across sites despite logistical and operational challenges. These findings support the feasibility of using high-throughput, community-based markerless motion capture and suggest a viable pathway for addressing long-standing limitations in sample size and representativeness through scalable data collection workflows in biomechanics studies.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.