Effect of footwear midsole hardness and thickness on proprioception and stability in older men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary form only received: Falls in the elderly are a major health issue. A noted gerontologist asserts that elderly humans should wear footwear with hard soles because they optimize proprioceptive input-hence stability. The relations between proprioception and footwear sole properties, however, have never been examined objectively, yet such an examination seems justified because of the potential benefit to the public of footwear optimized for stability. The authors tested the relations between footwear midsole thickness and hardness, and foot position awareness in a sample of 13 older healthy men of mean age 72.6 years (min. 65 years; max. 84 years; SD 4.50). Subjects wore identical shoes except for thickness and hardness of midsole material which approximately spanned the respective ranges found in currently available footwear. The results obtained allow the authors to conclude that midsole hardness and thickness alter proprioception in older men. Further, the authors' data support the notion that footwear with thin-hard soles should be worn by the elderly because they optimize proprioceptive input and stability, and athletic footwear and many modern walking shoes may represent safety hazards for this cohort.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".