SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Noise-robust markerless video gait anomaly detection via two-stage acquisition and LSTM autoencoders.

Sci Rep · 2025-11-26

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-26169-9PMID: 41298560

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

We propose a markerless gait anomaly detection system for orthopedic screening. The framework combines MediaPipe-based joint tracking, unsupervised LSTM-autoencoder modeling, and targeted preprocessing to address clinical video noise. Trained only on normal gait, the model detects abnormal patterns in sarcopenia (SA) and Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, achieving detection rates of 97% and 88%, respectively. Our method achieves state-of-the-art performance in sarcopenia detection, surpassing recent sensor-based approaches that require wearable devices or handcrafted features. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first unified markerless framework capable of identifying both sarcopenia and Parkinson's disease using a single video-based system. To improve input quality, we address three common sources of error-frame imbalance, clothing interference, and background clutter-using YOLO-based frame filtering and semantic segmentation. This increased usable gait data by up to 38%. Joint-level analysis identified the knees as the most responsive to gait abnormalities, enabling interpretable and localized assessments. Our results highlight the potential of a scalable, non-invasive system for early detection and monitoring of musculoskeletal disorders.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.