Gender and Age-Related Differences in Bilateral Lower Extremity Mechanics during Treadmill Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female runners have a two-fold risk of sustaining certain running-related injuries as compared to their male counterparts. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the sex-related differences in running kinematics is necessary. However, previous studies have either used discrete time point variables and inferential statistics and/or relatively small subject numbers. Therefore, the first purpose of this study was to use a principal component analysis (PCA) method along with a support vector machine (SVM) classifier to examine the differences in running gait kinematics between female and male runners across a large sample of the running population as well as between two age-specific sub-groups. Bilateral 3-dimensional lower extremity gait kinematic data were collected during treadmill running. Data were analysed on the complete sample (n = 483: female 263, male 220), a younger subject group (n = 56), and an older subject group (n = 51). The PC scores were first sorted by the percentage of variance explained and we also employed a novel approach wherein PCs were sorted based on between-gender statistical effect sizes. An SVM was used to determine if the sex and age conditions were separable and classifiable based on the PCA. Forty PCs explained 84.74% of the variance in the data and an SVM classification accuracy of 86.34% was found between female and male runners. Classification accuracies between genders for younger subjects were higher than a subgroup of older runners. The observed interactions between age and gender suggest these factors must be considered together when trying to create homogenous sub-groups for research purposes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".