Monitoring Gait Complexity as an Indicator for Running-Related Injury Risk in Collegiate Cross-Country Runners: A Proof-of-Concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamical systems theory suggests that studying the complexity of biological signals could lead to a single gait metric that reliably predicts risk of running-related injury (RRI). The purposes of this pilot study were to examine center of mass (COM) acceleration complexity at baseline, prior to RRI, and the change between timepoints between collegiate runners who developed RRI during a competitive season and those who remained uninjured, and to determine if complexity at these timepoints was associated with increased odds of RRI. Twenty-two collegiate runners from the same cross-country team wore a waist-mounted triaxial accelerometer (100 Hz) during easy-intensity runs throughout the competitive season. RRIs requiring medical attention were reported via an online survey. Control entropy was used to estimate the complexity of the resultant COM acceleration recorded during each run. Associations between complexity and RRI were assessed using a frequency-matching strategy where uninjured participants were paired with injured participants using complexity from the most time-proximal run prior to RRI. Seven runners sustained an RRI. No significant differences were observed between injured and uninjured groups for baseline complexity ( p = 0.364, d = 0.405), pre-injury complexity ( p = 0.258, d = 0.581), or change from baseline to pre-injury ( p = 0.101, d = 0.963). There were no statistically significant associations found between complexity and RRI risk. Although no significant associations were found, the median effect from the models indicated that an increase in baseline complexity, pre-injury complexity, and change in complexity from baseline each corresponded to an increased odds of sustaining an RRI [baseline: odds ratio (OR) = 1.560, 95% CI = 0.587–4.143, p = 0.372; pre-injury: OR = 1.926, 95% CI: 0.689–5.382, p = 0.211; change from baseline: OR = 1.119; 95% CI: 0.839–1.491, p = 0.445). Despite non-significance and wide confidence intervals that included both positive and negative associations, the point estimates for >98% of the 10,000 frequency-case–control-matched model fits indicated that matching strategy did not influence the directionality of the association estimates between complexity and RRI risk (i.e., odds ratio >1.0). This pilot study demonstrates initial feasibility that additional research may support COM acceleration complexity as a useful single-metric monitoring system for RRI risk during real-world training. Follow-up work should assess longitudinal associations between gait complexity and running-related injury in larger cohorts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".