MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115402909 · doi:10.4236/health.2020.1212117

Medial Longitudinal Arch Pad Influences Landing Control of the Lower Limbs during Single-Leg Jump-Landing

2020· article· en· W3115402909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuichi Takata, Mitiru Sugimoto, Koji Iwamoto, Isamu Kitsunai, Kyoji Sugiyama, Kazushi Kimura

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArchJumpBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationFoot (prosody)MedicineOrthodonticsStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Arch support has the effect of maintaining arch and correcting alignment, and it is broadly used for the prevention of sports impediment and treatment of athletes with lowered MLA and foot problems. The fact that the morphological change of MLA damages balance sense and postural control, it was reported that the insole supporting the arch of MLA improved postural balance. There are several studies regarding the effects of arch support; however, its effects on landing control have not been clarified. Therefore, in our research, we discussed the effect of MLA support for landing control, using lower limb dynamic alignment and the moment during landing as indexes. Methods: This study measured the landing motion to be evaluated was to jump from a platform with a height of 30 cm by taking-off with a single foot, and landing on a single foot on a floor reaction force gauge placed ahead and stay still for three seconds for the subjects were 13 healthy females. A soft 6 mm Boron sheet cut in the size of 9 × 3.5 cm, applied with double-sided tape (MLA pad) was used for arch support (hereafter referred to as “pad”). For the lower limb evaluation, an 8-camera with a three-dimensional behavioral analyzer (CORTEX, NAC product, sampling frequency: 120 Hz) and a floor reaction force gauge (AMTI product, sampling frequency: 1000 Hz) were used. Ten successful jump-landing tests for each limb were used for further analyses using Visual 3D software (Cmotion Inc., Kingston, Canada). Analysis objects were knee joint bending angle and valgus angle during landing; knee joint maximum bending angle; bending knee joint valgus angle, hip joint bending angle, adduction angle, ankle joint plantar flexion angle, varus angle at the time of knee joint maximum bending angle; and each joint moment. For statistical processing, the average value of three trials out of five trials was regarded as a representative value. Results: Regarding joint angles, significant differences were observed in maximum knee joint bending angle, knee joint bending angle during maximum valgus knee joint and ankle joint varus angle during knee joint maximum bending angle between before and after intervention. No significant differences were observed in other joint angles. Regarding joint moments, no significant difference was observed in each joint moment before and after the intervention. Significance: The decrease of knee joint valgus angle during landing by the use of MLA pad suggests the possibility of decreasing the risk of ACL injury. As the incidence of ACL injury in females is higher than that of males, and the evaluation for females had proceeded, it can be useful information for the prevention of ACL injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207