MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404347553 · doi:10.1038/s41597-024-04011-7

A Biomechanical Dataset of 1,798 Healthy and Injured Subjects During Treadmill Walking and Running

2024· article· en· W4404347553 on OpenAlexafffund
Reed Ferber, Allan Brett, Reginaldo Fukuchi, Blayne A. Hettinga, Sean T. Osis

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsRunning Injury ClinicUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsTreadmillPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative biomechanical gait analysis is an important clinical and research tool for injury and disease diagnosis and treatment. However, one major criticism is that gait analysis laboratories largely operate in isolation and there is a lack of benchmark datasets, which can be used to advance research and statistical methodologies. To address this, we present an open biomechanics dataset of n = 1798 healthy and injured, young and older adults during treadmill walking and/or running at a range of gait speeds. The full dataset is available on Figshare+ and data files are contained within a series of zipped folders with folder names representing the subject ID. Each subject ID folder contains walking and/or running data containing raw marker trajectory data along with metadata for each participant. Five tutorials are also provided, demonstrating aspects such as loading data files, sample analyses of discrete variables, and calculating joint angles from code along with covering more complex topics such as principal component analysis for dimensionality reduction, statistical parametric mapping, and conducting unsupervised clustering.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207