RiteeshGrandhi/sciclaimeval-shared-task huggingface dataset:
Results
There were a total of 50 participants in the study, 29 males and 21 females ( Table 1 ). A statistically significant decrease in distance was observed during the anterior YBT in participants while taped versus when not taped (83.00 ± 13.25 and 81.22 ± 8.51 p = 0.001), as well as a decrease in distance during the posterior lateral YBT participants while taped versus when not taped (78.00 ± 14.75 and 76.44 ± 11.92 p = 0.005). The static analysis at the pressure platform measurements, statistically significant changes were observed, an increase in the maximum pressure measured in grams per square centimeters in the midfoot (533.50 ± 125.96 and 558.58 ± 120.37 p = 0. 001), a decrease in peak pressure measured in grams per square centimeters in the forefoot (575.14 ± 106.56 and 530.80 ± 106.83 p = 0.003) and a decrease in contact surface measured in square centimeters in the rearfoot (32.56 ± 5.78 and 30.70 ± 6.38 p = 0.003).

The dynamic measurements made with the pressure platform showed statistically significant changes in the taped condition compared to the non-taped condition, a decrease in the contact surface measured in square centimeters in the rearfoot (33.04 ± 5.08 and 31.00 ± 4.64 p = 0.001), an increase in mean pressure measured in grams per square centimeter in both the midfoot (1,113.77 ± 331.98 and 1,229.46 ± 326.96 p = 0.044) and forefoot (1,169.00 ± 323.50 and 1,174.00 ± 408.50 p = 0.001). A significant decrease in velocity measured in meters per second is also observed in the forefoot in the dynamic assessment (644.00 ± 77.64 and 600.00 ± 105.00 p = 0.003). Table 2
Conclusions
The results of the present study showed that ankle taping alters biomechanical variables, including increased midfoot pressures and decreased forefoot pressures, suggesting a shift in load distribution. The reduction in forefoot velocity and YBT scores indicates changes in gait dynamics and balance. While taping enhances joint stability and may aid in preventing ankle injuries, these biomechanical alterations highlight the need for tailored taping strategies to ensure effective injury prevention without compromising movement efficiency and therefore the authors cannot recommend prophylactic taping for healthy subjects with no prior history of LAS.
Figure 1: Step-by-step taping Taping process.

  Download full-size image
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18472/fig-1
Figure 2: Visual taping application.

  Download full-size image
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18472/fig-2
Descriptive data.
Plantar pressure platform variables with and without ankle taping.