Effect of Shoe Inserts on Kinematics, Center of Pressure, and Leg Joint Moments during Running
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this project were to assess the effect of four different shoe inserts on the path of the center of pressure (COP), to quantify the effect of these inserts on selected knee joint moments during running, and to assess the potential of COP data to predict the effects of inserts/orthotics on knee joint moments. METHODS: Kinematics for the lower extremities, resultant ankle and knee joint moments, and the path of the COP were collected from the right foot of 15 male subjects while running heel-toe with five different shoe inserts (full or half with 4.5-mm postings). RESULTS: Individual movement changes with respect to the neutral insert condition were typically small and not systematic. Significant changes for the path of the COP were registered only for the full lateral insert condition with an average shift toward the lateral side. The mediolateral shift of the COP was not consistent for the full medial and the two half-shoe inserts. The subject-specific reactions to the inserts' intervention in the corresponding knee joint moments were typically not consistent. Compared with the neutral insert condition, subjects showed increases or decreases of the knee joint moments. The correlation between the individual COP shifts and the resultant knee joint moment was generally small. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that subject-specific reactions to the tested inserts were often not as expected. Additionally, reactions were not consistent between the subjects. This result suggests that the prescription of inserts and/or orthotics is a difficult task and that methods must be developed to test and assess these effects. Such methods, however, are not currently available.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it