Differences in running technique between runners with better and poorer running economy and lower and higher milage: An artificial neural network approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies investigated selected discrete sagittal-plane outcomes (e.g., peak knee flexion) in relation to running economy, hereby discarding the potential relevance of running technique parameters during noninvestigated phases of the gait cycle and in other movement planes. PURPOSE: Investigate which components of running technique distinguish groups of runners with better and poorer economy and higher and lower weekly running distance using an artificial neural network (ANN) approach with layer-wise relevance propagation. METHODS: while three-dimensional kinematics and gas exchange data were collected. Two groups were created that differed in running economy or weekly training distance. The three-dimensional kinematic data were used as input to an ANN to predict group allocations. Layer-wise relevance propagation was used to determine the relevance of three-dimensional kinematics for group classification. RESULTS: The ANN classified runners in the correct economy or distance group with accuracies of up to 62% and 71%, respectively. Knee, hip, and ankle flexion were most relevant to both classifications. Runners with poorer running economy showed higher knee flexion during swing, more hip flexion during early stance, and more ankle extension after toe-off. Runners with higher running distance showed less trunk rotation during swing. CONCLUSION: The ANN accuracy was moderate when predicting whether runners had better, or poorer running economy, or had a higher or lower weekly training distance based on their running technique. The kinematic components that contributed the most to the classification may nevertheless inform future research and training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".