MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094431141 · doi:10.1682/jrrd.2004.05.0059

Electromyographic and kinematic nondisabled gait differences at extremely slow overground and treadmill walking speeds

2005· article· en· W2094431141 on OpenAlexaff
J. Nymark, Suzanne Balmer, Ellen H. Melis, Edward D. Lemaire, Shawn Millar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsTreadmillPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCadenceCoactivationTrunkGaitElectromyographyPreferred walking speedSTRIDEPower walkingMedicinePhysical therapyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the kinematic and electromyographic (EMG) gait patterns of able-bodied adults at natural speed in contrast to extremely slow overground and treadmill walking speeds. Kinematic and EMG data were collected at three speeds (self-selected, 0.30 m/s, and 0.20 m/s). Eighteen subjects were evaluated for trunk and lower-limb motion and EMG of five lower-limb muscles. Significant reductions were found in segmental motion between natural speed and both slower gait speeds, accompanied by an expected reduction in cadence and stride. EMG patterns at slower speeds showed changes in timing and reduced magnitudes. Phasic timing of the proximal muscles showed the most changes with predominant coactivation, whereas the distal muscles remained consistent with the pattern at natural self-selected speed. Overground versus treadmill gait patterns revealed minimal differences. Consideration of the effects of slower walking speed may help clinicians create interventions to target primary gait deficits on overground or treadmill walking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations131
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rehabilitation Research and DevelopmentSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207