Between-Day Reliability of Commonly Used IMU Features during a Fatiguing Run and the Effect of Speed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if fatigue-related changes in biomechanics derived from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) placed at the center of mass (CoM) are reliable day-to-day. Sixteen runners performed two runs at maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) on a treadmill, one run 5% above MLSS speed, and one run 5% below MLSS speed while wearing a CoM-mounted IMU. Trials were performed to volitional exhaustion or a specified termination time. IMU features were derived from each axis and the resultant. Feature means were calculated for each subject during non-fatigued and fatigued states. Comparisons were performed between the two trials at MLSS and between all four trials. The only significant fatigue state × trial interaction was the 25th percentile of the results when comparing all trials. There were no main effects for trial for either comparison method. There were main effects for fatigue state for most features in both comparison methods. Reliability, measured by an intraclass coefficient (ICC), was good-to-excellent for most features. These results suggest that fatigue-related changes in biomechanics derived from a CoM-mounted IMU are reliable day-to-day when participants ran at or around MLSS and are not significantly affected by slight deviations in speed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".