Cross-Leg Prediction of Running Kinematics across Various Running Conditions and Drawing from a Minimal Data Set Using a Single Wearable Sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility of prediction of same-limb kinematics using a single inertial measurement unit attached to the same limb has been demonstrated using machine learning. This study was performed to see if a single inertial measurement unit attached to the tibia can predict the opposite leg’s kinematics (cross-leg prediction). It also investigated if there is a minimal or smaller data set in a convolutional neural network model to predict lower extremity running kinematics under other running conditions and with what accuracy for the intra- and inter-participant situations. Ten recreational runners completed running exercises under five conditions, including treadmill running at speeds of 2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5 m/s and level-ground running at their preferred speed. A one-predict-all scheme was adopted to determine which running condition could be used to best predict a participant’s overall running kinematics. Running kinematic predictions were performed for intra- and inter-participant scenarios. Among the tested running conditions, treadmill running at 3 m/s was found to be the optimal condition for accurately predicting running kinematics under other conditions, with R2 values ranging from 0.880 to 0.958 and 0.784 to 0.936 for intra- and inter-participant scenarios, respectively. The feasibility of cross-leg prediction was demonstrated but with significantly lower accuracy than the same leg. The treadmill running condition at 3 m/s showed the highest intra-participant cross-leg prediction accuracy. This study proposes a novel, deep-learning method for predicting running kinematics under different conditions on a small training data set.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".