ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The Use of Machine Learning to Estimate Ground Reaction Forces During Running: A Scoping Review of the Current Practices.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Ground reaction forces (GRFs) are essential for assessing running biomechanics, and the combination of wearable sensors and machine learning offers an accessible alternative for estimating GRFs outside controlled environments. This scoping review summarized current methods used to predict GRFs during running. A structured search (2019-2025) identified 36 studies, from which 37% did not report participant's training status, and 59% of all participants were males. Treadmill running was assessed in 58% of studies, which included larger samples (median N = 28) and more steps/participant (median = 65) than overground studies (median N = 14; median = 32). Deep learning models, particularly LSTM and Bi-LSTM networks, were the most applied techniques, though presenting similar accuracies compared to classical regression methods. Vertical GRF predictions were the most accurate, while mediolateral GRF predictions remain challenging. GRF-derived variables such as peak forces, impact peaks, and impulses were predicted more accurately than region-dependent metrics like loading rates. Notably, no study validated treadmill-trained models on overground running, limiting real-world generalizability. Future work should prioritize larger, sex-balanced cohorts, improving prediction of mediolateral GRFs and loading rates, and explore validating treadmill-based models in overground conditions. In conclusion, although machine learning shows promise for GRF predictions, key methodological gaps must be addressed to enable robust, real-world applications.
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.