Effects of orthotic intervention and nine holes of simulated golf on club-head velocity in experienced golfers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was an initial investigation evaluating the effects of orthotic intervention on club-head velocity (CHV) among a group of experienced golfers before and after 9 holes of simulated golf. SETTING: Northwestern College of Chiropractic, Bloomington, Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve experienced golfers were included in the study. METHOD: CHV was measured with a device used by many Professional Golf Association and Ladies Professional Golf Association teaching professionals before and after wearing orthotics and before and after completing 9 holes of simulated golf. Subjects wore custom-made, flexible orthotics daily for 6 weeks and then were retested with the same objective measurement parameters. OUTCOME MEASURE: CHV (swing speed in miles per hour) was measured in all subjects before and after wearing custom-fit, flexible orthotics for 6 weeks and before and after completing 9 holes of simulated golf. RESULTS: There was an approximate increase in CHV of between 3 and 5 mph, or a relative increase in CHV by up to 7%, after subjects had worn custom-made, weight-bearing, flexible orthotics daily for 6 weeks. A 5-mph increase in CHV is equivalent to an approximate increase in golf ball travel distance of 15 yards, a significant increase for the tour player for whom small increases in performance can reflect large position changes on the roster board. In addition, the use of these custom of those eliminated the effects of fatigue associated with playing 9 holes of golf (relative to CHV) and therefore may improve the likelihood for more consistent golf performance. CONCLUSION: The use of the custom-fit, flexible orthotics in this study had a positive influence on CHV in experienced golfers.
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".