Unilateral jump landing neuromechanics of individuals with chronic ankle instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the neuromechanical (kinematic, kinetic and electromyographic (EMG)) differences between individuals with and without chronic ankle instability (CAI) during unilateral jump landing. DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: Kinematic, kinetic and EMG data of 32 participants with CAI and 31 control participants were collected during unilateral side jump landing (SIDE) and unilateral drop landing on three surfaces (even (DROP), unstable (FOAM) and laterally inclined (WEDGE)). Each participant had to complete five trials of each task in a randomised sequence. To compare the neuromechanical differences between groups, a one-dimensional statistical non-parametric mapping analysis was performed. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the CAI group exhibited increased biceps femoris muscle activity during the preactivation and landing phases, decreased gluteus medius and peroneus longus muscles activity during the preactivation phase and increased knee extension moment during the landing phase of the WEDGE task. The CAI group also exhibited increased ankle dorsiflexion during the landing phase of the FOAM task and decreased vastus lateralis muscle activity during the preactivation phase of the DROP task. Finally, the CAI group exhibited decreased biceps femoris muscle activity during the preactivation and landing phases and decreased gluteus medius muscle activity during the preactivation phase of the SIDE task compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with CAI present neuromechanical differences during unilateral jump landing compared to healthy individuals. The results of this study will improve our understanding of underlying deficits associated with CAI and will help researchers and clinicians to better target them during rehabilitation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".