Between-day reliability of inertial measurement unit parameters during soccer-specific change of direction test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the between-day reliability of change of direction (COD) biomechanics and speed in youth soccer players using inertial measurement units (IMUs) and high-speed video. A soccer-specific COD test including a 180° pivot turn was performed in both directions by 15 elite female (age: 15.3 ± 0.6 years; height 162.6 ± 5.5 cm; body mass: 56.7 ± 7.1 kg) and 22 elite male (age: 15.4 ± 0.5 years; height 169 ± 5.9 cm; body mass: 58.5 ± 8.5 kg) youth soccer players in two consecutive days. The reliability of the variables was quantified by using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis with limits of agreement (LoA) and Bland–Altman plots. Based on the results, neither peak resultant acceleration (PRA) nor peak angular velocity (PAV) during final foot contact was sufficiently reliable for 180° pivot turn biomechanics (poor reliability, < 0.5), but the reliability of players’ running time to turn and total time was between acceptable to good (0.9>; > 0.7). However, when analyzing females and males separately, the PRA and angular velocity ICC's for females had poor to acceptable reliability, when turning left, and were statistically different from males ( Z-score > 1.96). Acceptable to good reliability with reasonable (max 15% difference) LoA implies that speed measures in different phases of COD could reliably reproduce individual differences in 180° pivot turn COD speed. Sex-related differences in repeatability of acceleration and angular velocity call for more comprehensive research in the future. PAV and PRA would not be recommended for the purpose of analyzing individual repeatability of specific steps of COD movement.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".