Effects of frontal and sagittal thorax attitudes in gait on trunk and pelvis three-dimensional kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mean lateral trunk deviations over the gait cycle affect upper body 3D kinematics. Trunk bending side (not its range) results in altered thorax and pelvic kinematics. Bending side interacts with thorax inclination during body-weight transfer. Results reinforce the existence of more than one typical able-bodied gait pattern. While sagittal trunk inclinations alter upper body biomechanics, little is known about the extent of frontal trunk bending on upper body and pelvis kinematics in adults during gait and its relation to sagittal trunk inclinations. The objective was to determine the effect of the mean lateral trunk attitude on upper body and pelvis three-dimensional kinematics during gait in asymptomatic subjects. Three gait cycles were collected in 30 subjects using a motion analysis system (Vicon 612) and an established protocol. Sub-groups were formed based on the mean thorax lateral bending angle, bending side, and also sagittal tilt. These were compared based on 38 peak angles identified on pelvis, thorax and shoulder kinematics using MANOVAs. A main effect for bending side ( p = 0.038) was found, especially for thorax peak angles. Statistics revealed also a significant interaction ( p = 0.04993) between bending side and tilt for the thorax sagittal inclination during body-weight transfer. These results reinforce the existence of different gait patterns, which correlate upper body and pelvis motion measures. The results also suggest that frontal and sagittal trunk attitude should be considered carefully when treating a patient with impaired gait.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".