Use of subject-specific models to detect fatigue-related changes in running biomechanics: a random forest approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Running biomechanics are affected by fatiguing or prolonged runs. However, no evidence to date has conclusively linked this effect to running-related injury (RRI) development or performance implications. Previous investigations using subject-specific models in running have demonstrated higher accuracy than group-based models, however, this has been infrequently applied to fatigue. In this study, two experiments were conducted to determine whether subject-specific models outperformed group-based models to classify running biomechanics during non-fatigued and fatigued conditions. In the first experiment, 16 participants performed four treadmill runs at or around the maximal lactate steady state. In the second experiment, nine participants performed five prolonged runs using commercial wearable devices. For each experiment, two segments were extracted from each trial from early and late in the run. For each participant, a random forest model was applied with a leave-one-run-out cross-validation to classify between the early (non-fatigued) and late (fatigued) segments. Additionally, group-based classifiers with a leave-one-subject-out cross validation were constructed. For experiment 1, mean classification accuracies for the single-subject and group-based classifiers were 68.2 ± 8.2% and 57.0 ± 8.9%, respectively. For experiment 2, mean classification accuracies for the single-subject and group-based classifiers were 68.9 ± 17.1% and 61.5 ± 11.7%, respectively. Variable importance rankings were consistent within participants, but these rankings differed from each participant to those of the group. Although the classification accuracies were relatively low, these findings highlight the advantage of subject-specific classifiers to detect changes in running biomechanics with fatigue and indicate the potential of using big data and wearable technology approaches in future research to determine possible connections between biomechanics and RRI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".