Interactions between foot placement, trunk frontal position, weight-bearing and knee moment asymmetry at seat-off during rising from a chair in healthy controls and persons with hemiparesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the interaction of foot placement, trunk frontal position, weight-bearing and knee moment asymmetry at seat-off when rising from a chair. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: Seventeen subjects with hemiparesis and 15 healthy controls. METHODS: Trunk position, weight-bearing and knee moment asymmetry were quantified by kinetic and kinematic analysis when the subjects rose from a chair using 3 different foot placements: spontaneous, symmetrical and asymmetrical. Asymmetry was defined by the ratio between sides. RESULTS: In the healthy controls, the spontaneous and symmetrical foot placements were associated with an almost vertical trunk position and a symmetrical weight-bearing and knee moment. The asymmetrical foot placement resulted in a trunk displacement towards the foot placed behind, with more weight-bearing and higher moment on this side. The opposite was observed in the hemiparetic participants where the spontaneous and symmetrical foot conditions determined a trunk position and an asymmetry bias towards the unaffected side. Placing the affected foot behind the other reduced the asymmetrical behaviour. CONCLUSION: Changes in weight-bearing are partly associated with the frontal trunk position, and foot placement manipulations can be used to modify weight-bearing distribution. Inference on weight-bearing is possible by observing the trunk position during the sit-to-stand task in persons with hemiparesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".