MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284882472 · doi:10.1155/2022/3938075

The Influence of the Relative Timing between Pole and Heel Strike on Lower Limb Loading among Young and Older Naïve Pole Walkers

2022· article· en· W4284882472 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincenzo E. Di Bacco, Jeevaka B. Kiriella, William H. Gage

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Sports Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research is unclear with respect to whether pole walking (PW) reduces lower limb loading when compared to regular walking (RW). Contradictory findings in the literature may be related to the relative timing between pole and foot contact events, which were examined in the current study among naïve pole walkers. Fourteen young (4 F; 25.3 ± 5.4 years) and 8 older adults (4 F; 68.5 ± 3.2 years) performed PW and RW trials along a force plate embedded walkway at two different visits. The time difference between pole and foot contact during both the onset of ground contact and the peak force application was calculated. Several kinetic measures were calculated for the lower limbs and poles. A significant decrease during PW, compared to RW, was found for foot impulse (2.1%; <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>&lt;</a:mo> <a:mn>0.01</a:mn> </a:math> ), peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) (3.4%; <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>&lt;</c:mo> <c:mn>0.01</c:mn> </c:math> ), rate of loading (5.2%; <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.02</e:mn> </e:math> ), and peak push-off vGRF (2.1%; <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>0.01</g:mn> </g:math> ). No difference in pole loading was found between age groups and visits. No significant correlations were found between the relative timing and foot loading measures. Significant low-to-moderate negative correlations were found between peak foot and pole vGRFs ( <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>p</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.04</i:mn> </i:math> ), peak foot vGRF and pole strike impulse ( <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mi>p</k:mi> <k:mo>=</k:mo> <k:mn>0.01</k:mn> </k:math> ), peak foot vGRF and pole impulse ( <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:mi>p</m:mi> <m:mo>=</m:mo> <m:mn>0.02</m:mn> </m:math> ), and peak foot push-off vGRF and pole impulse ( <o:math xmlns:o="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8"> <o:mi>p</o:mi> <o:mo>=</o:mo> <o:mn>0.01</o:mn> </o:math> ), suggesting that as pole loading increased, foot loading decreased. Findings suggest timing between pole and heel contact may not be related to unloading the lower limbs but may be related to other aspects of pole use since PW reduced lower limb loading.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Sports MedicineSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207