Cycling with noncircular chainring system changes the three-dimensional kinematics of the lower limbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the three-dimensional (3-D) pedaling kinematics using a noncircular chainring system and a conventional system. Five cyclists pedaled at their preferred cadence at a workload of 300 W using two crank systems. Flexion/extension of the hip, knee and ankle as well as shank rotation, foot adduction/abduction, and pedal angle were measured. Joint range of motion (ROM) and angular displacements were compared between the systems. Sagittal plane ROM was significantly greater (P < 0.05) at the hip (noncircular system = 39 +/- 3 degrees; conventional system = 34 +/- 4 degrees) the knee (noncircular system = 69 +/- 4 degrees; conventional system = 57 +/- 10 degrees), and ankle (noncircular system = 21 +/- 2 degrees; conventional system = 19 +/- 4 degrees) resulting in greater pedal ROM (noncircular system = 43 +/- 3 degrees; conventional system = 37 +/- 5 degrees) while using the noncircular system. Shank rotation ROM was significantly lower (P < 0.05) while using the noncircular chainring (noncircular system = 10 +/- 1 degree; conventional system = 14 +/- 1 degree). These results support a significant effect of the noncircular chainring system on pedaling kinematics during submaximal exercise.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".