Integrating footwear features into fatigue prediction models for marathon runners: A hybrid CNN-LSTM approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Footwear design, especially the curvature of carbon plates, may influence fatigue perception, but few studies have integrated footwear features into fatigue prediction models. This study aimed to develop a hybrid CNN-LSTM model to predict runners’ fatigue states and evaluate the impact of footwear characteristics on fatigue perception. Twelve male marathon runners (age = 21.8 ± 1.3 years; body mass = 59.1 ± 4.1 kg; height = 168.9 ± 2.2 cm; and weekly mileage = 68.8 ± 5.5 km) participated. They wore two types of carbon-plated shoes (flat plate, FP, and curved plate (CP)) and ran at a steady pace (Borg score 13) until a Borg score of 16 or 85% of maximum heart rate was reached for 2 min. EMG signals and physiological data were collected during treadmill running. A hybrid CNN-LSTM model was trained with and without footwear features to predict fatigue states. The model with footwear features achieved 85% accuracy, compared to 69% without. Curved carbon plate (CP) shoes delayed semi-fatigue onset, indicating better initial support, but the time to full fatigue was similar for both shoe types. The CNN-LSTM model effectively predicted fatigue states, with significant improvement when footwear features were included. Footwear design, particularly carbon plate curvature, influenced fatigue perception.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".