Gender differences in gait kinematics in runners with iliotibial band syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atypical running gait biomechanics are considered a primary factor in the etiology of iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS). However, a general consensus on the underpinning kinematic differences between runners with and without ITBS is yet to be reached. This lack of consensus may be due in part to three issues: gender differences in gait mechanics, the preselection of discrete biomechanical variables, and/or relatively small sample sizes. Therefore, this study was designed to address two purposes: (a) examining differences in gait kinematics for male and female runners experiencing ITBS at the time of testing and (b) assessing differences in gait kinematics between healthy gender- and age-matched runners as compared with their ITBS counterparts using waveform analysis. Ninety-six runners participated in this study: 48 ITBS and 48 healthy runners. The results show that female ITBS runners exhibited significantly greater hip external rotation compared with male ITBS and female healthy runners. On the contrary, male ITBS runners exhibited significantly greater ankle internal rotation compared with healthy males. These results suggest that care should be taken to account for gender when investigating the biomechanical etiology of ITBS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".