Knee abduction angular impulses during prolonged running with wedged insoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wedged insoles may produce immediate effects on knee abduction angular impulses during running; however, it is currently not known whether these knee abduction angular impulse magnitudes are maintained throughout a run when fatigue sets in. If changes occur, this could affect the clinical utility of wedged insoles in treating conditions such as patellofemoral pain. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine whether knee abduction angular impulses are altered during a prolonged run with wedged insoles. It was hypothesized that knee abduction angular impulses would be reduced following a prolonged run with wedged insoles. Nine healthy runners participated. Runners were randomly assigned to either a 6-mm medial wedge condition or a 6-mm lateral wedge condition and then ran continuously overground for 30 min. Knee abduction angular impulses were quantified at 0 and 30 min using a gait analysis procedure. After 2 days, participants returned to perform the same test but with the other wedge type. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate main effects of wedge condition and time and interactions between wedge condition and time (α = 0.05). Paired t-tests were used for post hoc analysis (α = 0.01). No interaction effects (p = 0.958) were found, and knee abduction angular impulses were not significantly different over time (p = 0.384). Lateral wedge conditions produced lesser knee abduction angular impulses than medial conditions at 0 min (difference of 2.79 N m s, p = 0.006) and at 30 min (difference of 2.76 N m s, p < 0.001). It is concluded that significant knee abduction angular impulse changes within wedge conditions do not occur during a 30-min run. Additionally, knee abduction angular impulse differences between wedge conditions are maintained during a 30-min run.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".