Steps Toward the Validation of the Trendelenburg Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity of the Trendelenburg test (TT) using an ultrasound-guided nerve block (UNB) of the superior gluteal nerve and determine whether the reduction in hip abductor muscle (HABD) strength would result in the theorized mechanical compensatory strategies measured during the TT. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental. SETTING: Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 9 healthy men. Only participants with no current or previous injury to the lumbar spine, pelvis, or lower extremities, and no previous surgeries were included. INTERVENTIONS: Ultrasound-guided nerve block. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hip abductor muscle strength (percent body weight [%BW]), contralateral pelvic drop (cPD), change in contralateral pelvic drop (ΔcPD), ipsilateral hip adduction, and ipsilateral trunk sway (TRUNK) measured in degrees. RESULTS: The median age and weight of the participants were 31 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22-32 years) and 73 kg (IQR, 67-81 kg), respectively. An average 52% reduction of HABD strength (z = 2.36, P = 0.02) resulted after the UNB. No differences were found in cPD or ΔcPD (z = 0.01, P = 0.99, z = -0.67, P = 0.49, respectively). Individual changes in biomechanics showed no consistency between participants and nonsystematic changes across the group. One participant demonstrated the mechanical compensations described by Trendelenburg. CONCLUSIONS: The TT should not be used as a screening measure for HABD strength in populations demonstrating strength greater than 30%BW but should be reserved for use with populations with marked HABD weakness. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study presents data regarding a critical level of HABD strength required to support the pelvis during the TT.
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 | 0.112 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".