The Effect of Work Boots on Knee Mechanics and the Center of Pressure at the Knee During Static Kneeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational kneeling is associated with an increased risk for the development of knee osteoarthritis. Previous work studying occupational kneeling has neglected to account for the fact that in many industrial settings, workers are required to wear steel-toe work boots. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of work boot wear on the center of pressure location of the ground reaction force, knee joint angle, and magnitude of the ground reaction force in a kneeling posture. Fifteen healthy males were fit with 3D motion capture markers and knelt statically over a force plate embedded in the floor. Using the tibial tuberosity as the point of reference, the center of pressure in shod condition was shifted significantly medially (on average 0.009 m [P = .005]) compared with the barefoot condition. The knee was significantly less internally rotated (shod: -12.5° vs. barefoot: -17.4° [P = .009]) and the anterior/posterior shear force was significantly greater in the shod condition (shod: 6.0% body weight vs. barefoot: 1.5% body weight [P = .002]). Therefore, wearing work boots alters the kneeling posture compared with barefoot kneeling, potentially loading different surfaces of the knee, as well as altering knee joint moments.
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) | 0.001 | 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".