Human in vivo talocrural contributions to ankle joint complex kinematics during walking, running, and hopping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human ankle joint complex, consisting of calcaneus, talus, and tibia, is often simplified as a single functional ankle joint, neglecting the motion of the talus. Understanding the individual contributions of the talus and calcaneus is crucial for comprehending ankle joint complex function in healthy populations, and alterations in function that may exist in clinical conditions. To achieve accurate bone kinematics, high-resolution biplanar videoradiography was used with participants engaged in walking and running (n = 9) and hopping (n = 9) with no overlap in participants. The rotation axes for the calcaneus and talus were analysed relative to the tibia over the ankle joint dorsi-/plantar flexion phases. Contributions of the talocrural joint to overall ankle joint complex function were measured by comparing the range of motion (talus relative to calcaneus). Most of the sagittal plane motion in the ankle joint complex (80%) occurred in the talocrural joint, with the subtalar joint contributing 20%. Rotation of the calcaneus about the tibia dominated frontal and transverse plane motion during hopping. Although surprisingly large ranges of talus motion were also observed in these planes (>5deg), indicating notable inter-subject variability and that the talocrural joint is not a simple hinge joint. The study highlights the importance of directly quantifying talus motion to understand ankle joint complex function. The results showed opposing talus and calcaneus movements for many participants during different locomotor tasks, which may influence the magnitude and distribution of subtalar joint loading. In addition, the large out-of-sagittal plane movements and inter-subject variability in talus and calcaneus motion may further emphasize the need for personalised models to investigate treatments for ankle pathologies.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".