MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques
Identification of the centre of the glenohumeral joint (GHJ) is essential for three-dimensional (3D) upper limb motion analysis. A number of convenient, yet un-validated methods are routinely used to estimate the GHJ location in preference to the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) recommend...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
Pergamon Press
2009
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/30410 |
| _version_ | 1848753080832622592 |
|---|---|
| author | Campbell, Amity Lloyd, D. Alderson, J. Elliott, B. |
| author_facet | Campbell, Amity Lloyd, D. Alderson, J. Elliott, B. |
| author_sort | Campbell, Amity |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Identification of the centre of the glenohumeral joint (GHJ) is essential for three-dimensional (3D) upper limb motion analysis. A number of convenient, yet un-validated methods are routinely used to estimate the GHJ location in preference to the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) recommended methods. The current study developed a new regression model, and simple 3D offset method for GHJ location estimation, employing easy to administer measures, and compared the estimates with the known GHJ location measured with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The accuracy and reliability of the new regression and simple 3D offset techniques were compared with six established predictive methods. Twenty subjects wore a 3D motion analysis marker set that was also visible in MRI. Immediately following imaging, they underwent 3D motion analysis acquisition. The GHJ and anatomical landmark positions of 15 participants were used to determine the new regression and simple 3D generic offset methods. These were compared for accuracy with six established methods using 10 subject's data. A cross validation on 5 participants not used for regression model development was also performed. Finally, 10 participants underwent a further two MRI's and subsequent 3D motion analysis analyses for inter-tester and intra-tester reliability quantification. When compared with any of the other established methods, our newly developed regression model found an average GHJ location closer to the actual MRI location, having an GHJ location error of 13±2 mm, and had significantly lower inter-tester reliability error, 6±4 mm (p<0.01). © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T08:18:50Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-30410 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T08:18:50Z |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publisher | Pergamon Press |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-304102017-09-13T15:33:14Z MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques Campbell, Amity Lloyd, D. Alderson, J. Elliott, B. Identification of the centre of the glenohumeral joint (GHJ) is essential for three-dimensional (3D) upper limb motion analysis. A number of convenient, yet un-validated methods are routinely used to estimate the GHJ location in preference to the International Society of Biomechanics (ISB) recommended methods. The current study developed a new regression model, and simple 3D offset method for GHJ location estimation, employing easy to administer measures, and compared the estimates with the known GHJ location measured with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The accuracy and reliability of the new regression and simple 3D offset techniques were compared with six established predictive methods. Twenty subjects wore a 3D motion analysis marker set that was also visible in MRI. Immediately following imaging, they underwent 3D motion analysis acquisition. The GHJ and anatomical landmark positions of 15 participants were used to determine the new regression and simple 3D generic offset methods. These were compared for accuracy with six established methods using 10 subject's data. A cross validation on 5 participants not used for regression model development was also performed. Finally, 10 participants underwent a further two MRI's and subsequent 3D motion analysis analyses for inter-tester and intra-tester reliability quantification. When compared with any of the other established methods, our newly developed regression model found an average GHJ location closer to the actual MRI location, having an GHJ location error of 13±2 mm, and had significantly lower inter-tester reliability error, 6±4 mm (p<0.01). © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 2009 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/30410 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.03.039 Pergamon Press restricted |
| spellingShingle | Campbell, Amity Lloyd, D. Alderson, J. Elliott, B. MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques |
| title | MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques |
| title_full | MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques |
| title_fullStr | MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques |
| title_full_unstemmed | MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques |
| title_short | MRI development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques |
| title_sort | mri development and validation of two new predictive methods of glenohumeral joint centre location identification and comparison with established techniques |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/30410 |