New Considerations for Collecting Biomechanical Data Using Wearable Sensors: How Does Inclination Influence the Number of Runs Needed to Determine a Stable Running Gait Pattern?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As inertial measurement units (IMUs) are used to capture gait data in real-world environments, guidelines are required in order to determine a 'typical' or 'stable' gait pattern across multiple days of data collection. Since uphill and downhill running can greatly affect the biomechanics of running gait, this study sought to determine the number of runs needed to establish a stable running pattern during level, downhill, and uphill conditions for both univariate and multivariate analyses of running biomechanical data collected using a single wearable IMU device. Pelvic drop, ground contact time, braking, vertical oscillation, pelvic rotation, and cadence, were recorded from thirty-five recreational runners running in three elevation conditions: level, downhill, and uphill. Univariate and multivariate normal distributions were estimated from differing numbers of runs and stability was defined when the addition of a new run resulted in less than a 5% change in the 2.5 and 97.5 quantiles of the 95% probability density function for each individual runner. This stability point was determined separately for each runner and each IMU variable (univariate and multivariate). The results showed that 2-4 runs were needed to define a stable running pattern for univariate, and 4-5 days were necessary for multivariate analysis across all inclination conditions. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to cross-validate differing elevation conditions and showed excellent correlations (r = 0.98 to 1.0) comparing the training and testing data within the same elevation condition and good to very good correlations (r = 0.63-0.88) when comparing training and testing data from differing elevation conditions. These results suggest that future research involving wearable technology should collect multiple days of data in order to build reliable and accurate representations of an individual's stable gait pattern.
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 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".