ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Comparison of marker-based and center-of-pressure-based approaches for calculating the margin of stability.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The margin of stability (MoS) is a widely used biomechanical measure of dynamic stability during gait, typically computed as the distance between the extrapolated center of mass (xCoM) and the center of pressure (CoP). According to Hof's model, the CoP-based approach is considered the preferred approach for defining where the xCoM is relative to the BoS and calculating the MoS. However, marker-based approaches often need to be used in research and clinical settings due to practical constraints and the lack of standardization in marker selection introduces variability in MoS estimates. This study aimed to assess the difference between different marker-based approaches and the CoP-based approach. Methods: Using an open-access dataset of 30 healthy adults walking at a self-selected speed, MoS was calculated continuously during the stance phase in both the anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) directions. Various marker-based approaches were evaluated, including commonly used markers (AP: HEEL, TOE; ML: HEEL, ANKLE, M5, MID) and a novel approach using the most anterior (for AP MoS) or most lateral (for ML MoS) marker in contact with the ground at each time point (AP: MOST ANTERIOR; ML: MOST LATERAL). Differences were quantified using paired Results: Results showed that the MOST ANTERIOR approach had the closest agreement with the CoP-based approach for AP MoS (RMSD = 47.04 mm), while the HEEL marker provided the closest agreement with the CoP-based approach for the ML MoS estimates (RMSD = 17.93 mm). Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of marker selection in MoS analysis and suggest that specific marker configurations, particularly those grounded in foot-ground contact for the AP-MoS, provide closest estimates relative to the CoP-based approach. This study offers evidence-based recommendations for improving consistency and comparability in future MoS studies using marker-based approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.