MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationship Between Ankle Frontal Muscle Powers and Three-D Gait Patterns

2002· article· en· W2324649015 on OpenAlexaff
Heydar Sadeghi, Paul Allard, Régis Lachance, Rachid Aïssaoui, Somayeh Sadeghi, R. Perrault, Morris Duhaime

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalConcordia UniversityPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkleSagittal planeCoronal planeHeelMedicineCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)GaitOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyAnatomyPhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to demonstrate that the ankle frontal muscle power absorption and generation at push-off are related to the foot's initial position at heel-strike with respect to the body center of mass. DESIGN: Nineteen able-bodied male subjects participated in this study and were divided into two groups according to ankle frontal plane power generation or absorption at push-off. RESULTS: At heel-strike, the group that absorbed had a center of pressure that was located on average 25% more anteriorly and 36% more laterally to the body center of mass. Moreover, at push-off, the center of pressure was closer (26%) to the center of mass than in the generating group. The absorbing group compensated by increasing their sagittal plane hip energy by 30% to pull the lower limb forward and their knee power absorption by 47% to slow down the leg before the subsequent heel-strike. CONCLUSIONS: The foot's initial position at heel-strike explains in part the ankle frontal power generation or absorption at push-off. Increasing hip and knee sagittal joint powers and mechanical energies were the main contributors in compensating and providing a broader base of support and frontal plane ankle power absorption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207