Lower-Limb Kinematics of Single-Leg Squat Performance in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the kinematic parameters that characterize good and poor single-leg squat (SLS) performance. METHODS: A total of 22 healthy young adults free from musculoskeletal impairment were recruited for testing. For each SLS, both two-dimensional video and three-dimensional motion analysis data were collected. Pelvis, hip, and knee angles were calculated using a reliable and validated lower-limb (LL) biomechanical model. Two-dimensional video clips of SLSs were blindly assessed in random order by eight musculoskeletal physiotherapists using a 10-point ordinal scale. To facilitate between-group comparisons, SLS performances were stratified by tertiles corresponding to poor, intermediate, and good SLS performance. RESULTS: Mean ratings of SLS performance assessed by physiotherapists were 8.3 (SD 0.5), 6.8 (SD 0.7), and 4.0 (SD 0.8) for good, intermediate, and poor squats, respectively. Three-dimensional analysis revealed that people whose SLS performance was assessed as poor exhibited increased hip adduction, reduced knee flexion, and increased medio-lateral displacement of the knee joint centre compared to those whose SLS performance was assessed as good (p≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, poor SLS performance is characterized by inadequate knee flexion and excessive frontal plane motion of the knee and hip. Future investigations of SLS performance should consider standardizing knee flexion angle to illuminate other influential kinematic parameters.
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".