Effect of Drop-Piece High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude Manipulation to the Midfoot of Asymptomatic Adult Sprinters on Performance During a Unilateral Horizontal Drop-Jump Test: A Feasibility Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of measuring the immediate effects of drop-piece high-velocity, low-amplitude (DP-HVLA) manipulation to the midfoot region on jump distance in competitive adult sprinters during a standardized unilateral horizontal drop-jump (U-HDJ) test. METHODS: Seven asymptomatic competitive adult sprinters (4 women) were recruited for this study. Testing was conducted on the dominant leg. Participants completed a 10-minute self-selected warm-up, followed by a 6-jump familiarization period with the U-HDJ test. All participants completed 3 U-HDJ trials before and after receiving DP-HVLA chiropractic manipulation to the joints of the midfoot assessed as being hypomobile by a licensed sports chiropractor. The primary outcome of the U-HDJ test was horizontal displacement, measured using an optoelectronic motion-capture system. Mean, SD, and 95% confidence intervals were determined for the posttreatment change in jump distance. A single-sample t test with α = 0.05 assessed the posttreatment change in jumping distance. RESULTS: We were able to measure immediate effects. The preliminary findings showed an increase in jump distance after DP-HVLA manipulation to the midfoot region (mean = 0.06 m, SD = 0.05 m; P = .014; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.11; effect size = 1.30). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that it was feasible to measure immediate improvement in performance after DP-HVLA chiropractic manipulation in a clinical assessment with correlation to sprinting performance in a population of elite sprinters. As this was a feasibility study, the small sample size, overlapping confidence intervals, and specific niche population limit the extrapolation of these findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".