Predicting continuous ground reaction forces from accelerometers during uphill and downhill running: A recurrent neural network solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ground reaction forces (GRFs) are important for understanding human movement, but their measurement is generally limited to a laboratory. Previous studies used neural networks to predict GRF waveforms during running from wearable device data, but these predictions are limited to the stance phase of level-ground running. We sought to develop a recurrent neural network capable of predicting continuous normal (perpendicular to surface) GRFs across a range of running speeds and slopes from accelerometer data. 19 subjects ran on a force-measuring treadmill at five slopes (0°, ±5°, ±10°) and three speeds (2.5, 3.33, 4.17 m/s) per slope with sacral- and shoe-mounted accelerometers. We then trained a recurrent neural network to predict normal GRF waveforms frame-by-frame. The predicted versus measured GRF waveforms had an average ± SD RMSE of 0.16 ± 0.04 BW and relative RMSE of 6.4 ± 1.5% across all conditions and subjects. The recurrent neural network predicted continuous normal GRF waveforms across a range of running speeds and slopes with greater accuracy than neural networks implemented in previous studies. This approach may facilitate predictions of biomechanical variables outside the laboratory in near real-time and improves the accurately of quantifying and monitoring external loads experienced by the body when running.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".