The influence of running shoes on familiarization time for treadmill running biomechanics evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated treadmill familiarisation time in different shoe conditions by comparing lower limb consecutive kinematics waveforms using a trend symmetry method to calculate trend symmetry index, range amplitude ratio and range offset. Eighteen young adults (26.6 ± 3.3 years, 7 females) completed three 10-minute running trials at their preferred running speed (2.30 ± 0.17 m/s) on a treadmill with three shoe conditions (i.e., usual, minimalist and maximalist shoes) in a random order. Sagittal lower limb kinematic data were recorded using inertial measurement units. The results showed that sagittal-plane kinematic waveforms in the hip, knee and ankle remained consistent (trend symmetry > 0.95) without extreme excursions (range amplitude ratio ≈ 1) over 10 minutes within each testing shoe condition. Significant time × shoe interaction effect was observed in range offset (i.e., absolute differences in the average degree of kinematic waveforms between consecutive minutes) at ankle (p = 0.029, ŋp2 = 0.096) and knee (p = 0.002, ŋp2 = 0.126). Post-hoc analysis suggested that running with novel shoes required a shorter time to achieve stable lower limb kinematics (2 to 3 minutes) compared with usual shoes (7 minutes). In conclusion, young healthy adults need up to 3 and 7 minutes to familiarise to the treadmill when running at their preferred speed with their novel and usual running shoes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".