Knee extension moment arm variations relate to mechanical function in walking and running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patellofemoral joint plays a crucial mechanical role during walking and running. It increases the knee extensor mechanism's moment arm and reduces the knee extension muscle forces required to generate the extension moment that supports body weight, prevents knee buckling and propels the centre of mass. However, the mechanical implications of moment arm variation caused by patellofemoral and tibiofemoral motion remain unclear. We used a data-driven musculoskeletal model with a 12-degree-of-freedom knee to simulate the knee extension moment arm during walking and running. Using a geometric method to calculate the moment arm, we found smaller moment arms during running than during walking in the swing phase. Overall, knee flexion causes differences between running and walking moment arms as increased flexion causes a posterior shift in the tibiofemoral rotation axis and patella articulation with the distal femur. Moment arms were also affected by knee motion direction and best predicted by separating by direction instead of across the entire gait cycle. Furthermore, we found high inter-subject variation in the moment arm that was largely explained by out-of-plane motion. Our results are consistent with the concept that shorter moment arms increase the effective mechanical advantage of the knee and may contribute to increased running velocity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".