Comparative analysis of lower limb biomechanics during unilateral drop jump landings on even and medially inclined surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Lower limbs biomechanics during unilateral jump landing, a common sports maneuver, is widely studied in research. Most studies used an even surface which may not be ecologically valid in sports contexts. There is a need to explore the lower limbs biomechanics during landing on other, more challenging, surfaces. The purpose of this study was to investigate the lower limb kinematic and kinetic differences during unilateral drop jump landing from a 30 cm platform on even (DROP) and medially inclined (WEDGE) surfaces. METHODS: Fifteen healthy participants were recruited to take part in this laboratory-based cross-sectional study. The experimental protocol involved comparing hip, knee, ankle and midfoot angles, moments, and power between DROP and WEDGE. RESULTS: Main kinematic findings were that during WEDGE, midfoot inversion angles were smaller, and ankle eversion and plantarflexion, knee abduction and internal rotation and hip abduction angles were greater compared to DROP. Main kinetic results were that during WEDGE, midfoot inversion and adduction moments, ankle inversion moments, knee adduction moments, hip adduction and internal rotation moments, midfoot and ankle power were greater and ankle plantarflexion and adduction moments and knee internal rotation moments were smaller compared to DROP. CONCLUSION: These adaptations highlight the intricate interaction between surface inclination and joint movements. This study's results not only contribute valuable insights into the biomechanics of landing on inclined surfaces but also lays the foundation for future research that can refine injury prevention strategies, optimize training protocols, and enhance the overall performance and safety of athletes across various sports.
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".