MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changes in Foot Pronation Biomechanics From a Walk to a Run

2015· article· en· W2469089558 on OpenAlexaff
Reed Ferber, Patria Hume, Sean T. Osis, Blayne A. Hettinga

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomechanicsAthletesKinematicsFoot (prosody)GaitMedicineTreadmillPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMathematicsPhysicsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Footwear prescription is often based on observation and/or measurement of walking (W) gait biomechanics to serve as a surrogate for foot mechanics when running (R). However, a comprehensive understanding of changes in foot biomechanics between W and R conditions remains unclear. PURPOSE: To determine changes in kinematics during W and R conditions for select foot biomechanical variables. METHODS: Three-dimensional W and R biomechanics were analyzed on a treadmill using standard motion analysis techniques and standardized speeds (W=1.1 m/s ±5%; R=2.7m/s ±10). Kinematic data for 437 athletes (187 male; 250 female; 18–48 years) were calculated. Variables of interest included peak rearfoot eversion RFEv, peak eversion velocity (EVVel), time to peak eversion (TTPEv), eversion excursion (EVExc), footstrike angle (FSA), and foot progression angle (PFA). All variables were analyzed using paired t-tests (p<0.05) for W to R comparisons. RESULTS: Compared to W, athletes exhibited small, yet significant increases during R for RFEv (W=-5.4 ±1.7°; R=-6.3 ±2.1°; p=0.01) and 147 athletes (31%) exhibited clinically meaningful increases greater than 2°. Compared to W, athletes exhibited significant increases for EVVel (W=108±30°/s; R=232±53°/s; p=0.01), and significant decreases for TTPEv (W=40±12%; R=25±5%; p=0.01) and FSA (W=24±3°; R=13±3°; p=0.01) for R. There were no significant differences between W and R for EVExc (W=-8.6±1.8°; R=-8.9±2.4°; p=0.08) or FPA (W=10.4±3.2°; R=10.5±3.3°; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: When running, FSA decreased towards a more horizontal heel strike orientation, RFEv occurred earlier during stance, and the foot everted at a greater velocity for this population of athletes. The overall subtle changes in RFEv from W to R suggest this kinematic variable does not change between walking and running for the majority of runners. However, since 31% of runners exhibited a change of 2o or more in RFEv, these results suggest that a running analysis may be required for proper footwear prescription.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207