Assessing Footwear Effects from Principal Features of Plantar Loading during Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effects of footwear on the musculoskeletal system are commonly assessed by interpreting the resultant force at the foot during the stance phase of running. However, this approach overlooks loading patterns across the entire foot. An alternative technique for assessing foot loading across different footwear conditions is possible using comprehensive analysis tools that extract different foot loading features, thus enhancing the functional interpretation of the differences across different interventions. The purpose of this article was to use pattern recognition techniques to develop and use a novel comprehensive method for assessing the effects of different footwear interventions on plantar loading. METHODS: A principal component analysis was used to extract different loading features from the stance phase of running, and a support vector machine (SVM) was used to determine whether and how these loading features were different across three shoe conditions. RESULTS: The results revealed distinct loading features at the foot during the stance phase of running. The loading features determined from the principal component analysis allowed successful classification of all three shoe conditions using the SVM. Several differences were found in the location and timing of the loading across each pairwise shoe comparison using the output from the SVM. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis approach proposed can successfully be used to compare different loading patterns with a much greater resolution than has been reported previously. This study has several important applications. One such application is that it would not be relevant for a user to select a shoe or for a manufacturer to alter a shoe's construction if the classification across shoe conditions would not have been significant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".