Age-related gait adaptations of ground reaction forces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare gait ground reaction forces (GRF) between children, adults, and older adults. Twenty-five children (6.13 ± 1.86 years), 30 adults (34.37 ± 5.67 years), and 33 older adults (70.45 ± 6.92 years) walked on force platforms. Velocity, GRF, and impulses were calculated. Gait velocity was higher in children compared to older adults ( p = 0.031). Gait velocity had an inverse effect in GRF parameters across all groups. The vertical peak of force appeared at 22% of the gait cycle in children, at 27.3% in adults, and at 25.7% in older adults. The anterior–posterior force peak appeared at 14.8% of the gait cycle in children, at 17.1% in adults, and at 16.5% in older adults. Ground reaction forces were higher in children ( p < 0.05) and similar between adults and older adults ( p > 0.05). Gait speed was higher in children compared to older adults, only ( p = 0.031). Gait ground reaction forces and impulses were higher in children and similar between adults and older adults walking at a self-selected velocity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".