Differences in kinetic variables between injured and uninjured rearfoot runners: A hierarchical cluster analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Running is a popular form of physical activity with a high incidence of running‐related injuries. However, the etiology of running‐related injuries remains elusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of movement patterns. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether different clusters existed within a large group of injured and uninjured runners based on their kinetic gait patterns. A sample of 134 injured and uninjured runners were acquired from an existing database and 12 discrete kinetic and spatiotemporal variables which are commonly associated with running injuries were extracted from the ground reaction force waveforms. A principal components analysis followed by an unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis was performed. The results revealed two distinct clusters of runners which were not associated with injury status (OR = 1.14 [0.57, 2.30], χ 2 = 0.143, p = 0.706) or sex (OR = 1.72 [0.85, 3.49], χ 2 = 2.3258, p = 0.127). These results suggest that while there appeared to be evidence for two distinct clusters within a large sample of injured and uninjured runners, there is no association between the kinetic variables and running related injuries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".