MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differences in Kinematic Correlates of Impact Loading Between Rearfoot and Non-Rearfoot Strikers in Running

2016· article· en· W2474312197 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Napier, Christopher L. MacLean, Jack Taunton, Jessica Maurer, Michael A. Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsGround reaction forceForce platformMathematicsHeelTreadmillKinetic energyGeologyGeodesyMechanicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysicsMedicinePhysical therapyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impact loading (in particular, average vertical loading rate (AVLR)) has been implicated in the development of several running-related injuries (RRIs). Some researchers have also suggested that overstriding (landing with the foot too far in front of the centre of mass (COM)) may be linked to increased loading rates and RRI. There is no clear method for measuring overstriding. PURPOSE: To establish the relationship between kinetic outcomes (vertical impact peak (VIP), instantaneous vertical loading rate (IVLR), and AVLR) and five kinematic measures of overstriding (angle of shank at initial contact (IC); horizontal distance from heel to COM at IC; horizontal distance from centre of pressure (COP) to COM at IC; angle between COP, COM, and vertical projection of the COM; percent of step length anterior to COM). METHODS: 18 healthy female recreational runners (12 rearfoot strikers (RFS), 6 non-rearfoot strikers (NRFS)) ran at their preferred speed on an instrumented treadmill (Treadmetrix) while ground reaction force data and 3D joint kinematics were collected using a motion capture system (Qualisys). Data were analyzed using Visual3D software (C-Motion). Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between the kinetic and kinematic variables. RESULTS: RFS and NRFS displayed opposing relationships between the kinematic measures of overstriding and kinetic outcomes. RFS showed a moderate positive correlation between AVLR and horizontal distance from heel to COM at IC (r=0.62, p=0.037). Conversely, NRFS displayed moderate to strong negative correlations between kinetic outcomes and several kinematic measures, with percent of step length anterior to COM showing the strongest association (AVLR r=-0.56, p=0.031; IVLR r=-0.65, p=0.009; VIP r=-0.80, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest RFS and NRFS demonstrate moderate to strong, but opposing relationships between kinematic measures of overstriding and kinetic outcomes associated with RRI. Two potential measures of overstriding are associated with increased loading rates, but are dependent on classification of foot strike. Prospective studies are warranted to determine whether these overstriding measures also result in increased injury incidence. Supported by a Mitacs Accelerate Graduate Research Award.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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