O5 Differences in vertical ground reaction forces in individuals with chronic ankle instability during walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Study Design</h3> Case-control study. <h3>Objectives</h3> To compare the vertical ground reaction forces (GRF) of individuals with and without chronic ankle instability (CAI), shod or barefoot, during normal and fast walking. <h3>Background</h3> CAI is a condition that often occurs after sustaining an ankle sprain. Kinetic differences between participants with and without CAI during walking were previously reported. However, some studies assessed these parameters with shoes while others had the participants walk barefoot. No study has yet investigated if there are differences in GRF when walking shod or barefoot in participants with and without CAI. Furthermore, no studies have quantified the effects of walking speed on these parameters. <h3>Methods and Measures</h3> Two groups of 21 participants (with and without CAI) were recruited. All participants performed five overground walking trials, shod and barefoot, at normal and fast walking speeds. During these tasks, the GRF were measured with a force platform embedded in the floor on the participants’ path. The variables analysed were the impact peak, the active peak, the average loading rate (AVL) and the time of impact and active peaks. GRF differences were compared with repeated-measures analysis of variance. The level of statistical significance was set at p<0.05 and Hedges’ g>0.5. <h3>Results</h3> No significant differences were observed between groups for all variables. However, significant condition and speed effects were found. Earlier and lower impact peak were observed when walking barefoot compared to shod. The analyses also yielded earlier and lower impact peak, a delayed active peak and a lower AVL in normal compared to fast walking. <h3>Conclusions</h3> These results suggest that participants with CAI do not have altered GRF during walking. It has been previously reported that participants with CAI have altered GRF during running. It would be interesting to assess if significant differences are only observed in more challenging tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".