Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2025.02.02.636149

The influence of common testing floor surfaces on force plate data: implications for standardisation

Smith, L.·Jones, P.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Force plate testing is commonly used to assess athlete performance, however there is no research into the effect the surface underneath the force plate has on derived variables. The aim of this study was to investigate whether different surfaces underneath a force plate would elicit differences in derived force plate variables using a mechanical testing device. A mechanical testing device was used to assess force reduction, peak force, rate of force development (RFD) and contact time across seven common testing surfaces: vinyl, rubber, Olympic lifting platform, ground (CarpetF) and first floor (CarpetF) carpet, Mondo track and a sprung gymnasium floor (Sprung). Significant differences in force reduction, peak force, RFD, and contact time were found between flooring conditions (p < 0.05), with large to extremely large effect sizes. Sprung flooring exhibited the highest force reduction and lowest peak forces, while CarpetF demonstrated the lowest RFD and longest contact time. These findings highlight the flooring surface underneath the force plate during testing significantly influenced derived variables. Practitioners should exert caution and consideration to force plate testing location and advocate standardisation in flooring surface in order to ensure consistent and accurate results.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Smith, L., Jones, P.. 2025-02-05. The influence of common testing floor surfaces on force plate data: implications for standardisation. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.02.636149

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

It is not just about the science - the impact of undergraduate research projects and COVID-19 on graduate attributes and employability.

Over the past two decades, Higher Education Institutions have increasingly prioritised transferrable skills to enhance graduate employability. Graduate Attributes (GAs) now act as key indicators of student competencies for both learners and employers. Final-year research projects, typically high in credit value, represent capstone experiences that promote subject expertise and GA development through research, written work, and oral presentations. This study analyses pre- and post-project survey data from RQF Level 6 biomedical and biomolecular science students at a Russell Group University over four years (2019-2023). Most projects were laboratory-based, though the 2020-2021 cohort completed theirs remotely due to COVID-19. Students reflected on expectations and experiences of GA development, subject knowledge, and employability. Initial responses revealed anxiety and uncertainty, particularly among the 2020-2021 cohort, but most anticipated gains in skills and employability. Post-project feedback confirmed this, identifying critical thinking, confidence, resilience, collaboration, and future focus as key outcomes. Digital capability was notably strengthened, especially during remote delivery. The findings emphasise the importance of a shared understanding of GAs in bioscience education and the value of embedding structured reflection and preparatory support to help students recognise and articulate their evolving skills.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2026

Changes in Evidence Used for FDA Novel Drug Approvals Following the Implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act

BackgroundThe 21st Century Cures Act (2017) expanded FDA flexibility in applying methodological standards for drug approval. To examine trends before and after implementation, we independently reviewed all novel drugs approved between 2016 and 2024. MethodsWe constructed a database of all novel FDA approvals from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2024. Each study linked to an approved drug (N=6,763) was cataloged by study number, sponsorship, and timing of results reporting relative to completion. ResultsSince 2016, the number of studies supporting approval has steadily declined. Beginning in 2017, the modal number of studies per approval fell to one. Industry sponsorship increased while NIH-supported studies decreased. Average time to public posting of results exceeded the one-year statutory limit. ConclusionsAfter implementation of the Cures Act, FDA approvals have relied on fewer, increasingly industry-sponsored studies. Although this may accelerate access to new therapies, it raises concerns about the strength of evidence for safety and effectiveness.

scientific communication and education↗