ArticlePloS one2023
Indoor running temporal variability for different running speeds, treadmill inclinations, and three different estimation strategies.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and Reliability of Running Stride-Time Variability Analyses from Wearable Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ground gradient affects stride-to-stride fluctuations and gait variability in overground walking.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Long range correlations of stride intervals in uphill and downhill trail running.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Running Gait Complexity During an Overground, Mass-Participation Five-Kilometre Run.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inertial measurement units (IMU) constitute a light and cost-effective alternative to gold-standard measurement systems in the assessment of running temporal variables. IMU data collected on 20 runners running at different speeds (80, 90, 100, 110 and 120% of preferred running speed) and treadmill inclination (±2, ±5, and ±8%) were used here to predict the following temporal variables: stride frequency, duty factor, and two indices of running variability such as the detrended fluctuation analysis alpha (DFA-α) and the Higuchi's D (HG-D). Three different estimation methodologies were compared: 1) a gold-standard optoelectronic device (which provided the reference values), 2) IMU placed on the runner's feet, 3) a single IMU on the runner's thorax used in conjunction with a machine learning algorithm with a short 2-second or a long 120-second window as input. A two-way ANOVA was used to test the presence of significant (p<0.05) differences due to the running condition or to the estimation methodology. The findings of this study suggest that using both IMU configurations for estimating stride frequency can be effective and comparable to the gold-standard. Additionally, the results indicate that the use of a single IMU on the thorax with a machine learning algorithm can lead to more accurate estimates of duty factor than the strategy of the IMU on the feet. However, caution should be exercised when using these techniques to measure running variability indices. Estimating DFA-α from a short 2-second time window was possible only in level running but not in downhill running and it could not accurately estimate HG-D across all running conditions. By taking a long 120-second window a machine learning algorithm could improve the accuracy in the estimation of DFA-α in all running conditions. By taking these factors into account, researchers and practitioners can make informed decisions about the use of IMU technology in measuring running biomechanics.
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.