Dynamic postural stability is more variable barefoot than in footwear in healthy individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balance has been explored as a risk to or consequence of various musculoskeletal injuries and falls. However, the influence of footwear on variables of dynamic balance is not well understood. The aim was to (1) compare dynamic postural stability while barefoot to wearing personal well-used footwear and (2) determine the influence of footwear mediolateral asymmetry on dynamic stability. One hundred and six healthy participants, aged 32.4 (SD 13.3) years, performed a double- to single-leg stance task while standing on two force platforms barefoot and in their own footwear. Medial and lateral outersole thickness and midsole hardness were measured for asymmetry. Variability of anterioposterior (SDFx) and mediolateral (SDFy) ground reaction forces (GRF), centre of pressures displacement (COPd), mean COP velocity (COPv), and time to stabilisation of both forces (TTSFx and TTSFy) were calculated. During double-leg stance, SDFy was more variable barefoot by 12.2% (95%CI: 1.2–24.3%, p = 0.028). Significant differences between barefoot and footwear of 13.8% (7.4–20.7%, p = 0.001), 25.9% (17.0–35.4%, p = 0.001), 16.5% (8.8–24.7%, p = 0.001) were measured during the transition phase for SDFx, COPd and COPv, respectively. Similar results were found for all these variables during single-leg stance. In contrast, TTSFx and TTSFy was quicker barefoot than in footwear by 11.9% (4.0–19.2%, p = 0.004) and 3.5% (1.2–5.7%, p = 0.003). Participants with asymmetric footwear had greater barefoot mediolateral variability (SDFy) during transition than those with symmetric footwear, similarly, during the shod single-leg stance phase. Healthy individuals respond differently to dynamic stability testing while barefoot than in their personal footwear. Footwear asymmetry should be considered when assessing dynamic stability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".