ArticlePloS one2025
Estimating braking and propulsion forces during overground running in and out of the lab.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurately estimating kinetic metrics, such as braking and propulsion forces, in real-world running environments enhances our understanding of performance, fatigue, and injury. Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer a potential solution to estimate kinetic metrics outside the lab when combined with machine learning. However, current IMU-based kinetic estimation models are trained and evaluated within a single environment, often on lab treadmills. The transferability of these treadmill-trained models during overground running in and out of the lab is underexplored, and the individualization and validation of such models remain a challenge. Toward bridging this gap, we trained a generalized model on treadmill data of 15 recreational runners and evaluated braking and propulsion force estimates during overground running in and out of the lab. We explored fine-tuning with individual data from lab-based overground running to quantify model performance improvements with individualization. The generalized and fine-tuned models were extrapolated to outdoor running for a subset of five participants, and estimates were compared to lab-based overground measurements. Evaluating the generalized model with a leave-one-out cross validation yielded overground braking and propulsion force root mean squared error of 4.3 ± 1.1 % bodyweight (%BW). Fine-tuning this model with eight strides reduced error to 2.6 ± 0.5 %BW. Outdoor force predictions from the fine-tuned model better aligned with expected linear trends between braking/propulsion impulses and speed than the generalized model. These results provide insights into the accuracy and applicability of IMU data-driven models for braking and propulsion estimation during overground running, facilitating the development of practical, individualized biomechanical analysis tools for real-world use.
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.