Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: In vivo biomechanical study of 11 male volunteers. OBJECTIVE: To measure the peak forces applied to the buttocks in a backward fall from standing, and to determine whether this force is lowered by reductions in floor stiffness. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Fall-related vertebral fractures are common and backward falls result in impact to the buttocks. Compliant flooring may reduce impact force and risk for vertebral fracture during a fall. However, we have little knowledge of the peak forces applied to the body during a backward fall, or how floor stiffness affects this force. METHODS: Eleven males, mean age 25 +/- 5 (SD) years, were suddenly released from a backward lean of 15 degrees , falling backward onto the ground which was covered with 4.5, 7.5, or 10.5 cm of ethylene vinyl acetate foam rubber. We measured 3-dimensional impact forces applied to the buttocks at 960 Hz with a force plate. We used repeated measures analysis of variance and post hoc t tests to compare peak forces between conditions. We also modeled peak vertical force for falls onto a bare floor. RESULTS.: There was a significant difference in peak vertical force between falls onto the 10.5 cm foam condition compared with the 7.5 cm (P = 0.002) and 4.5 cm (P < 0.001) conditions. Peak vertical force (N) was (mean +/- SD) 5099 +/- 868, 4788 +/- 702, and 4544 +/- 672 for the 4.5, 7.5, and 10.5 cm foam conditions, respectively, and estimated at 6027 +/- 988 for the rigid (bare floor) condition. Compared with the bare floor, these foam floors provided, on average, 24, 20, and 15% force attenuation respectively. CONCLUSION: In a backward fall onto the buttocks, peak impact forces are 6.4 to 9.0 times body weight in a fall onto a bare floor. Reducing floor stiffness using even a thin (4.5 cm) layer of foam may provide 15% vertical force attenuation during a fall onto the buttocks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".