Ankle Kinematics and Muscle Activity in Functional Ankle Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Following an ankle injury, many patients have functional ankle instability (FAI) with an increased predisposition to reinjury. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of FAI on ankle kinematics and muscle activity during a lateral hop movement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and observational study; all data collection for each subject was performed on 1 day. SETTING: Clinical biomechanics laboratory. PATIENTS: Two groups were studied: (1) Control group-no ankle injury (n = 12), and (2) FAI group (n = 12). INTERVENTIONS: The lateral hop movement consisted of multiple lateral and medial 1-legged hops over an obstacle (width, 72.5 cm; depth, 25.5 cm; height, 14.3 cm) onto adjacent force platforms. Each subject was instructed to perform as many lateral hops as possible during the 6-second trial. Means, SDs, 95% confidence intervals of the differences, and P-values were calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ankle kinematics and muscle activity throughout the lateral hop movement. RESULTS: Significant differences existed between groups for mean (SD) dorsiflexion ankle positions--FAI 82.4 degrees (6.4) versus normal 75.2 degrees (10.1) and tibialis anterior normalized muscle activity--FAI 0.27 (0.21) versus normal 0.16 (0.13) at ground contact. CONCLUSIONS: The FAI group revealed greater tibialis anterior muscle activity and dorsiflexion ankle position at contact moving in the lateral direction. These differences between groups may have been related to an inherent predisposition to ankle injuries, a preexisting difference in task performance, a consequence of injuries, or a compensatory adaptation to previous injuries.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".