Drop Landing Biomechanics in Individuals With and Without a Concussion History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has identified an increased risk of lower extremity injury postconcussion, which may be due to aberrant biomechanics during dynamic tasks. The purpose of this study was to compare the drop landing biomechanics between individuals with and without a concussion history. Twenty-five individuals with and 25 without a concussion history were matched on age (±3 y), sex, and body mass index (±1 kg/m2). Three-dimensional landing biomechanics were recorded to obtain dependent variables (peak vertical ground reaction force, loading rate, knee flexion angle and external moment, knee abduction angle and external moment, and knee flexion and abduction angle at ground contact). A 1-way multivariate analysis of variance compared outcomes between groups. There was no difference in drop landing biomechanics between individuals with and without a concussion history (F10,39 = 0.460, P = .877, Wilk Λ = .918). There was an effect of time since concussion on knee flexion characteristics. Time since most recent concussion explained a significant amount of variation in both peak (ΔR2 = .177, β = -0.305, ΔP = .046) and initial ground contact (ΔR2 = .292, β = -0.204, ΔP = .008) knee flexion angle after covarying for sex and body mass index. Therefore, time since concussion should be considered when evaluating biomechanical patterns.
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) | 0.000 | 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".