A hierarchical cluster analysis to determine whether injured runners exhibit similar kinematic gait patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have suggested that runners can be subgrouped based on homogeneous gait patterns; however, no previous study has assessed the presence of such subgroups in a population of individuals across a wide variety of injuries. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess whether distinct subgroups with homogeneous running patterns can be identified among a large group of injured and healthy runners and whether identified subgroups are associated with specific injury location. Three-dimensional kinematic data from 291 injured and healthy runners, representing both sexes and a wide range of ages (10-66 years), were clustered using hierarchical cluster analysis. Cluster analysis revealed five distinct subgroups from the data. Kinematic differences between the subgroups were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Against our hypothesis, runners with the same injury types did not cluster together, but the distribution of different injuries within subgroups was similar across the entire sample. These results suggest that homogeneous gait patterns exist independent of injury location and that it is important to consider these underlying patterns when planning injury prevention or rehabilitation strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".