Bilateral ground reaction forces and joint moments for lateral sidestepping and crossover stepping tasks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Racquet sports have high levels of joint injuries suggesting the joint loads during play may be excessive. Sports such as badminton employ lateral sidestepping (SS) and crossover stepping (XS) movements which so far have not been described in terms of biomechanics. This study examined bilateral ground reaction forces and three dimensional joint kinetics for both these gaits in order to determine the demands of the movements on the leading and trailing limb and predict the contribution of these movements to the occurrence of overuse injury of the lower limbs. A force platform and motion-analysis system were used to record ground reaction forces and track marker trajectories of 9 experienced male badminton players performing lateral SS, XS and forward running tasks at a controlled speed of 3 m·s(-1) using their normal technique. Ground reaction force and kinetic data for the hip, knee and ankle were analyzed, averaged across the group and the biomechanical variables compared. In all cases the ground reaction forces and joint moments were less than those experienced during moderate running suggesting that in normal play SS and XS gaits do not lead to high forces that could contribute to increased injury risk. Ground reaction forces during SS and XS do not appear to contribute to the development of overuse injury. The distinct roles of the leading and trailing limb, acting as a generator of vertical force and shock absorber respectively, during the SS and XS may however contribute to the development of muscular imbalances which may ultimately contribute to the development of overuse injury. However it is still possible that faulty use of these gaits might lead to high loads and this should be the subject of future work. Key pointsGround reaction forces and joint moments during lateral stepping are smaller in magnitude than those experienced during moderate running.Force exposure in SS and XS gaits in normal play does not appear to contribute to the development of overuse injuryThe leading and trailing limbs perform distinct roles, acting as a generator of vertical force and shock absorber respectively.This distinct contribution may contribute to the development of muscular imbalances which may ultimately contribute to the development of overuse injury.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".