ArticlePloS one2022
Foot rubbing evaluation of friction between shoe and flooring.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transfer Learning on Segment Anything Model for Footwear Outsole Segmentation to Predict Footwear Slip Resistance.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A simple and inexpensive method to evaluate slip resistance that can be readily introduced into the workplace is required. In the present study, we investigated the relationship between a simple sensory evaluation of anti-slipperiness by foot rubbing in standing and sitting positions and the actual friction properties obtained with in situ measurements at slip onset and during sliding. We also verified the possibility of identifying a hazardous area with a high slip-induced fall risk by the sensory evaluation scores. At the foot rubbing tests, more than half of the 15 participants in experiments could adequately perceive the slip resistance using the proposed method without any education on its perception. Furthermore, hazard detection scores, where a friction coefficient of 0.2 was detected as hazardous area, were obtained from optimal cut-off points of receiver operatorating characteristic curves for the participants with friction perception capability. The scores were 28.7, 20.7, 24.7, and 52.3/100 for the slip onset while standing, sliding while standing, slip onset while sitting, and sliding while sitting, respectively. From the viewpoint of hazard detection accuracies, the standing position was a better way than the sitting although limited to participants with the capability of perceiving friction. Based on the analysis of how to apply forces, the participants who showed a small movement of the center of pressure while standing or an increase in the vertical load while sitting had the capability of perceiving friction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.