MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036391267 · doi:10.1080/19424280.2020.1773936

The effects of systematically altered footwear features on biomechanics, injury, performance, and preference in runners of different skill level: a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3036391267 on OpenAlexaff
Fabian Hoitz, M. Mohr, Michael J. Asmussen, Wing‐Kai Lam, Sandro Nigg, Benno M. Nigg

Bibliographic record

VenueFootwear Science · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomechanicsForefootPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPreferenceMedicineMathematicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Matching running footwear features to the functional needs of specific groups of runners stratified according to their training status or running experience has the potential to improve footwear preference, enhance running performance, and reduce the risk of running-related injuries. The complexity of modern running shoes in combination with the various functional needs of specific groups of runners, however, introduces many confounding factors, disguising what an appropriate shoe design should entail. As a result, it is crucial to identify and synthesise the effects of systematically modified running footwear features on lower extremity biomechanics, performance, injury risk, and footwear preference in runners of different skill levels to advance the knowledge of running biomechanics and footwear. The databases Scopus and PubMed were searched for related studies and 895 articles were identified. After the application of exclusion criteria, 68 articles remained and were arranged in a matrix that highlighted the investigated footwear feature and runner level. The effects of 20 footwear features on lower extremity biomechanics, injury, performance, and preference in novice, recreational, and high calibre runners were synthesised. Laced uppers with harder midsole materials in the forefoot/lateral regions of the shoe and softer materials in the rearfoot/medial regions increased comfort and thus likely preference. To increase performance, footwear should be constructed as lightweight as possible, and implement a range of different bending stiffness for individual needs. Injury risks at the knee joint were reduced in footwear with thinner midsoles. For high calibre runners, specifically, insoles should be custom moulded to the shape of the foot, and special attention needs to be payed to the elasticity of the upper, in order to avoid detrimental shifts in running patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFootwear ScienceSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207