ArticleScientific reports2026
Biomechanical exploration of cushioning and stability in auxetic lattice midsoles during jump landing.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High-impact forces during jump landing pose a risk for lower limb injuries, highlighting the importance of shoe midsole cushioning, where the effectiveness of midsole hardness remains controversial. This study evaluated the biomechanical performance of three-dimensional auxetic lattice structure midsoles during jump landing, examining their cushioning mechanisms and stability. Four midsoles were tested: two auxetic lattices (A60 and A75), a non-auxetic structure (N90), and a traditional polyurethane (PU) midsole, using plantar pressure measurements (Pedar‑X system) and finite element simulations. Results showed that auxetic midsoles significantly improved overall performance, reducing peak plantar pressure and impact loading rate compared to non-auxetic designs. Specifically, A60 provided optimal forefoot pressure reduction, while A75 offered superior stability, with both enhancing pressure distribution uniformity through increased foot-shoe contact area. These findings demonstrate that auxetic lattice structures enhance jump landing cushioning in healthy young males. The angle-dependent performance trade-offs-forefoot pressure reduction for A60 and enhanced stability for A75-offer initial evidence for zoned midsole design concepts, warranting further sport-specific validation.
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.