Evaluation of Single-leg Balance during Landing from 20- and 40-centimeter Heights in Individuals with and without Chronic Ankle Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to assess balance performance using kinematic measures of the center of pressure during single-leg landings from two different heights in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI), and to compare the findings with those from healthy individuals.Methods A total of 34 male participants aged 20 to 40 years (17 with CAI and 17 healthy controls) were recruited.Participants performed single-leg landings from heights of 20 and 40 centimeters onto a Kistler force plate, followed by maintaining a single-leg standing posture for 10 seconds.The measured variables included path length, sway amplitude, mean radial displacement, and sway area of the center of pressure (COP).Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used for betweengroup comparisons, and repeated-measures ANOVA was applied for within-group analyses.Results Individuals with CAI demonstrated significantly greater COP path length in the frontal plane during landings from both heights compared to the healthy group.Additionally, increasing the landing height was associated with significantly greater path length and sway amplitude in the sagittal plane, mean radial displacement, and COP sway area (p < 0.05). ConclusionThe findings suggest that individuals with chronic ankle instability exhibit impaired balance, particularly in the frontal plane, during single-leg landings.Therefore, rehabilitation programs should focus on improving balance and stabilizing COP fluctuations by targeting the muscles involved in postural control.These results may inform therapeutic strategies and contribute to re-injury prevention in this population.
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) | 0.001 | 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".