MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108285728 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000003854

Mechanical Energy Expenditure at Lumbar Spine and Lower Extremity Joints During the Single-Leg Squat Is Affected by the Nonstance Foot Position

2020· article· en· W3108285728 on OpenAlexaff
Steven M. Hirsch, C. J. Chapman, David M. Frost, Tyson A.C. Beach

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquatAnkleAnatomyInverse dynamicsOrthodonticsMathematicsKinematicsFoot (prosody)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Hirsch, SM, Chapman, CJ, Frost, DM, and Beach, TAC. Mechanical energy expenditure at lumbar spine and lower extremity joints during the single-leg squat is affected by the nonstance foot position. J Strength Cond Res 36(9): 2417-2426, 2022-Previous research has shown that discrete kinematic and kinetic quantities during bodyweight single-leg squat (SLS) movements are affected by elevated foot positioning and sex of the performer, but generalizations are limited by the high-dimensional data structure reported. Using a 3D inverse dynamical linked-segment model, we quantified mechanical energy expenditure (MEE) at each joint in the kinetic chain, the total MEE (sum of MEE across aforesaid joints), and the relative contribution of each joint to total MEE during SLSs performed with elevated foot positioned beside stance leg (SLS-Side), and in-front of (SLS-Front) and behind (SLS-Back) the body. Total MEE differed between SLS variations ( p = 0.002), with the least amount observed in the SLS-Back (effect size [ES] = 0.066-0.069). Approximately 50% of total MEE was contributed by the knee joint in each SLS variation, whereas MEE at the ankle, hip, and lumbar spine (in absolute and relative terms) varied complexly as a function of the elevated foot position. Total MEE ( p = 0.0192, ES = 0.852) and the absolute MEE at the knee and spine was greater in men across the SLS variations performed ( p = 0.025-0.036, ES = 0.715-0.766), but only the lumbar spine contribution to total MEE was larger in men across all SLS variations ( p = 0.045, ES = 0.607). Otherwise, there were no other sex-specific responses observed. Biomechanically, SLS movements are generally "knee-dominant," but changing elevated foot position effectively redistributes MEE among other joints in the linkage. Consistent with the previous conclusions reached based on discrete kinematic and kinetic data, not all SLSs are equal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207