SSMT-2026-0007 — In-shoe sensors measure between-limb load asymmetry during training.

SSMT-2026-0007v12026-07-26 Type M · Measurement Biomechanics draft

Claim, as marketed

“Know your injury risk before it happens. (measurement component)”

Canonical claim

In-shoe sensors measure between-limb load asymmetry during training.

Scope

Instrumented insoles validated against force plates in a laboratory. No field or free-living validity data was located for any device.

Verdict

Partially supported Force magnitude yes; the asymmetry number itself does not reproduce.

Real evidence, narrower than the claim.

This claim is split. The measurement limb of a marketed claim whose prediction limb is graded Contradicted. Split so the false half cannot ride on the true half.

SSMT-2026-0008 →

Claim drift — 3 of 7

▲Population▲Setting–Comparator–Outcome–Magnitude▲Reproducibility–Independence

Comparator is genuinely done properly — 1000–3000 Hz force plates and instrumented treadmills. Reproducibility is the entire finding here.

Evidence located

validation studies

4/5

independent

field validity studies

largest n

Findings

What holds. Discrete vertical ground-reaction-force variables agree well with force plates — peak force ICC 0.78–0.99, impulse 0.61–0.97, bias typically under 5%. Four of five studies carry explicit no-funding, no-COI statements, which is genuinely clean.

Rate-based variables are materially worse. Loading rate ICC drops to 0.61 at 100 Hz with 14% bias, and force rate was explicitly described as 'not sufficiently resolved' at that sampling rate.

The asymmetry metric's own day-to-day repeatability is near zero. Between-day limb symmetry index reproducibility was measured at ICC 0.004–0.297 for the stop jump (0.659–0.880 for the single hop). This is the single most damning number in the register — today's asymmetry score may not reproduce tomorrow — and it is the finding that justified adding Reproducibility as a seventh drift axis.

What would change this verdict

Demonstrated between-day and between-session reliability of the asymmetry metric in field conditions, targeting ICC above 0.75. Plus any free-living validity data at all, which currently does not exist for any device in this class.

Practitioner read

These sensors can genuinely tell you how much force each foot puts into the ground — that checks out against lab force plates for peak force and impulse, mostly in independent research. But the asymmetry number specifically has been measured with day-to-day repeatability as low as 0.004, so do not treat a single session's reading as a property of the athlete.

Could not be verified

Sample size for the one vendor-authored validation is not located (abstract omits it, full text paywalled).
No independent peer-reviewed validation of one popular consumer device was located.
One vendor's accuracy figures are self-published and not peer-reviewed — they must not be presented as independent evidence.

Listed rather than dropped. Counts are floors, not censuses.

Sources

Renner KE, Williams DSB, Queen RM (2019). Sensors 19(2):265 ↗
Peebles AT, et al. (2018). Sensors 18(12):4082 — symmetry repeatability ↗
Cramer LA, et al. (2022). Sensors 22(6):2203 ↗
Mulligan DJ, Milner CE (2025). PLoS One 20(12):e0339481 ↗

Every source must resolve at a DOI or PubMed ID.

Changelog

v1 · 2026-07-26 · Initial grade; split from the prediction claim.

Cite this card

SSMT. "In-shoe sensors measure between-limb load asymmetry during training." Claim SSMT-2026-0007 v1, graded 2026-07-26. https://sportssciencetech.com/c/SSMT-2026-0007

Disagree with this grade? Every card carries “what would change this verdict” so the specification is explicit. Send evidence and it will be logged and the card re-versioned in public — including when it moves a grade in a manufacturer's favour. Submit evidence →