Influence of shoe drop on running kinematics and kinetics in female runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the effects of shoe drop on lower limb kinematics and kinetics in female runners. Fifteen healthy female runners ran on a 15‐m runway at their preferred speed with three different shoe‐drop conditions: 0 ( D 0 ), 6 ( D 6 ) and 10 ( D 10 ) mm. Three‐dimensional marker positions and ground reaction forces were recorded to analyse kinetic and kinematic parameters using zero‐ (0D) and one‐dimensional (1D) metrics (statistical parametric mapping, SPM). Regarding 0D parameters, significantly higher loading rates and transient peaks were found in D 0 compared to D 6 and D 10 conditions (both p < .01). For 1D analysis, significantly higher ankle dorsiflexion moments were found in D 0 compared to D 6 and D 10 during the braking phase ( p < .01). Lower knee extension moments between 52% and 55% and 61% and 65% of contact time ( p < .05) were also found. No difference was found between D 6 and D 10 conditions ( p > .05). As previously shown in men, this study demonstrates that shoe drop influences running kinematic and kinetic patterns. Using SPM analysis in conjunction with classical analysis, the study adds new understanding on the influence of shoes on joint moment during contact time.
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 | 0.001 | 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".