MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412726408 · doi:10.1242/jeb.249695

The energetics and mechanics of trunk angle during flat and inclined walking in humans

2025· article· en· W4412726408 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron N. Best, Amy R. Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTrunkAnkleWork (physics)GaitPhysical medicine and rehabilitationKnee flexionMechanicsAnatomyMedicinePhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During flat walking, the trunk typically maintains an upright posture. However, when walking up slopes, humans tend to increase trunk flexion. This behaviour is not easily understood as increasing trunk flexion increases the torque required at the hip joint to stop the trunk from falling forwards. In this study, we investigated how trunk flexion affected metabolic cost and mechanical work during flat and inclined walking. Seven healthy subjects walked on a flat and inclined surface while trunk flexion angle was enforced using visual feedback. We found that healthy individuals tended to walk at the trunk angle that minimizes metabolic cost, and this trunk angle increased with the incline angle of the walking surface. As trunk flexion increased, hip work rate increased whereas knee and ankle work rate decreased. This study suggests that trunk flexion angle is another feature of gait controlled to maintain energetic efficiency by altering joint level mechanics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention→French-language works237,207→