The Influence of Body Mass Index and Gender on the Impact Attenuation Properties of Flooring Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biomechanical effectiveness of safety floors has never been assessed during sideways falls with human volunteers. Furthermore, the influence of body mass index (BMI) and gender on the protective capacity of safety floors is unknown. The purpose of this study was to test whether safety floors provide greater impact attenuation compared with traditional flooring, and whether BMI and gender modify their impact attenuation properties. Thirty participants (7 men and 7 women of low BMI; 7 men and 9 women of high BMI) underwent lateral pelvis release trials on 2 common floors and 4 safety floors. As a group, the safety floors reduced peak force (by up to 11.7%), and increased the time to peak force (by up to 25.5%) compared with a traditional institutional grade floor. Force attenuation was significantly higher for the low BMI group, and for males. Force attenuation was greatest for the low BMI males, averaging 26.5% (SD = 3.0) across the safety floors. These findings demonstrate an overall protective effect of safety floors during lateral falls on the pelvis, but also suggest augmented benefits for frail older adults (often with low body mass) who are at an increased risk of hip fracture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".