A Kinematic Comparison Between Sit-to-Stand Movements and Individual Cycles of the 5-Cycle Sit-to-Stand Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The 5-cycle sit-to-stand (5XSTS) test is frequently used to test physical function for different clinical populations, with time to complete as the measured outcome. This study evaluated the similarity of kinematics between a single cycle of the STS movement and individual cycles of the 5XSTS test. METHODS: Lower extremity, pelvis, and thorax kinematic data were monitored as 20 participants (aged 18-40) completed 5 trials of the STS movement and 1 trial of the 5XSTS test. Correlations and root mean squared differences assessed the temporal and spatial similarities in kinematic patterns of sagittal plane joint angles at the ankles, knees, hips, and spine between single cycles of the STS movement and individual cycles of the 5XSTS test. Peak joint angles were obtained along with discrete angles at the start, seat off, and end of the movement. RESULTS: Temporal and spatial similarity of kinematics for the ankles and hips were reduced over cycles 2 to 5 of the 5XSTS. Increased hip flexion was observed at the start of cycles 2 to 5 of the 5XSTS test. Increased knee and hip flexion were observed at the end of cycles 1 to 4 of the 5XSTS test. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal patterns of sagittal plane joint angles captured in the first cycle of the 5XSTS represented those adopted for an isolated STS movement. Different initial conditions for cycles 2 to 5 of the 5XSTS 58 may have reduced temporal and spatial similarity of sagittal plane joint angles of the ankles and hips.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".