MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Validating The Tekscan Strideway As A Measure Of Vertical Ground Reaction Force During Dynamic Movements

2021· article· en· W3186424130 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy A. Burkhart, Josh Andrusiak, Pardis Baha, Jim Dickey, Alan Getgood

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround reaction forceForce platformJumpSquatVertical jumpBiomechanicsMathematicsRepeated measures designOrthodonticsSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceMedicineKinematicsPhysicsStatisticsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tekscan Strideway system is a pressure and force mapping platform that addresses some of the limitations of traditional biomechanical analysis equipment. However, it has not been validated for use in assessing dynamic movements. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate the Tekscan Strideway against a traditional force plate, for the measurement of forces in response to dynamic movements METHODS: Nine, healthy (3 males, 6 females) participants were recruited for this study. The TekScan Strideway was placed directly on top of a force plate, allowing simultaneous collection of the two signals. Data were collected for three tasks: i) walking; ii) squat jump - data analysis was divided into the initial jump phase and the landing phase; and iii) drop vertical jump - data analysis was divided into an initial impact and a secondary impact phase. The peak force was extracted from the force time curves and used for the validation analysis. Separate one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used for different tasks tasks and phases. A Bland-Altman analysis was also performed on all tasks and phases. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the mean peak vertical ground reaction force between the Tekscan Strideway and the force plate for the drop vertical jump during phase 1 (28 N/kg vs 32 N/kg; p = 0.29) and phase 2 (23 N/kg vs 21 N/kg; p = 0.73) and during phase 1 (24 N/kg vs. 21 N/kg; p = 0.40) and phase 2 (41 N/kg vs. 41 N/kg; p = 0.96) of the squat jump. The differences in the mean peak vertical ground reaction forces measured on the Tekscan Strideway and force plate during the walking task were found to be statistically significant (p = 0.003). The Bland-Altman analysis indicated that there was good agreement between the two data collection methods, for all tasks and phases, as the majority of the data points fell within ±1.96 standard deviations of the mean. CONCLUSIONS: The Tekscan Strideway system is a valid measure of vertical ground reaction force for dynamic movements. Furthermore, these tasks reporesent those used clinically to determine an athletes readiness to return to play Therefore, this study supports the versatile Tekscan Strideway system when assessing lower limb biomechanics in a clinical or laboratory setting. Supported by NSERC(R5467A02) and Western University’s Bone and Joint Institute

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→