Evaluating a Wearable Solution for Measuring Lower Extremity Asymmetry During Landing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Force plates can be used to monitor landing asymmetries during rehabilitation, but they are not widely available. Accelerometer-based wearable technology may be a more feasible solution. The purpose of this article was to determine the agreement between impact accelerations measured with force plates and accelerometer-derived measures of (1) centre of mass (COM) acceleration and (2) tibial acceleration asymmetries during bilateral landings. Method: Participants completed three countermovement jumps (CMJ) and three squat jumps (SJ) on dual force plates with triaxial accelerometers attached to each tibia and lower back, near the COM. Bland and Altman 95% limits of agreement (95% LOA) were calculated. Results: = 8; 42% men) participated in the study. The mean differences between impact and COM accelerations were 0.24 g (95% LOA: -1.34 g to 1.82 g) and 0.38 g (95% LOA: -1.15 to 1.91 g) for the CMJ and SJ, respectively. The mean differences between the impact and tibial acceleration-based lower limb asymmetries in the CMJ and SJ were -6% (95% LOA: -32% to 19%) and 0% (95% LOA: -45% to 45%), respectively. Conclusions: Our findings show acceptable agreement between impact acceleration and accelerometer-based COM acceleration and lack of agreement between impact accelerations and accelerometer-based tibial acceleration asymmetries. COM acceleration could be used to quantify landing impacts during rehabilitation, but we do not consider the accelerometer-based asymmetry measures to be a suitable alternative for force plate-based measures. Future work should focus on determining normative values for lower extremity asymmetries during landing tasks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".