| Autor: |
Calle-González N; Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Córdoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain.; Equine Sport Medicine Center CEMEDE, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Córdoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain., Lo Feudo CM; Equine Sports Medicine Laboratory 'Franco Tradati', Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Università degli studi di Milano, 26900 Lodi, Italy., Ferrucci F; Equine Sports Medicine Laboratory 'Franco Tradati', Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Università degli studi di Milano, 26900 Lodi, Italy., Requena F; Equine Sport Medicine Center CEMEDE, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Córdoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain.; Department of Cellular Biology, Physiology and Immunology, University of Córdoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain., Stucchi L; Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy., Muñoz A; Department of Animal Medicine and Surgery, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Córdoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain.; Equine Sport Medicine Center CEMEDE, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Córdoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain. |
| Abstrakt: |
In horses, quantitative assessment of gait parameters, as with the use of inertial measurement units (IMUs) systems, might help in the decision-making process. However, it requires financial investment, is time-consuming, and lacks accuracy if displaced. An innovative artificial intelligence marker-less motion tracking system (AI-MTS) may overcome these limitations in the field. Our aim was to compare the level of agreement and accuracy between both systems and visual clinical assessment. Twenty horses underwent locomotion analysis by visual assessment, IMUs, and AI-MTS systems, under the following conditions: straight hard (SH), straight soft (SS), left and right circle hard (LCH, RCH), and soft (LCS, RCS). A greater number of horses were considered sound by clinical examination, compared to those identified as symmetric by the two gait analysis systems. More limbs were considered asymmetric by the AI-MTS compared to IMUs, suggesting its greater sensitivity. The greatest agreement between the two systems was found for the difference between two minima in vertical head position in SH, while the lowest for the difference between two minima in vertical pelvis position in SS, reflecting the difficulties in assessing asymmetry of the hindlimbs. It is unknown what degree of asymmetry is clinically relevant, suggesting that more consistent use in training horses may help determine the thresholds for asymmetry. Some degree of asymmetry may be clinically relevant, suggesting its regular use in training horses. |
