Flexion scores functional-movement effort for workers compensation, disability, and IME work. Every number is checked against 3D motion capture before it goes in a report.
Flexion is a prototype. No validation study has run yet. The research page shows what has been tested so far and where it breaks.
Three problems in effort measurement that every examiner, claims adjuster, and defense counsel runs into. This is how Flexion handles each one.
A positive effort flag carries real weight. A clean result clears nobody, because the grip test misses close to half of the people holding back. Flexion puts the sensitivity next to the specificity in every report, so nobody reads a weak rule-out as a clean bill.
No movement number goes in a report unless it survives a check against lab-grade ground truth. The research page shows the check being run on real footage, including the places where the phone camera fails it.
A single phone camera invents scatter the body never produced, and calibration does not remove it. So the capture step uses a second camera, a depth signal, or a gate that refuses footage from a bad angle. Refused footage gets no score at all.
Grip strength coefficient of variation is the most common effort test in IME work. Most reports cite the wrong specificity number, and most video effort tools skip the ground-truth check entirely. I pulled the primary data and tested both.
Read the full teardownShechtman 2001, REHAB24-6 motion capture, and the single-camera video trap. Four charts, each with the finding written under it, and the corrected specificity number.
Examiners, adjusters, defense counsel, FCE clinics. I want to hear how effort gets measured in your work and where the current tests let you down. Arguments welcome.
nick@flexionclaims.com