Effect of Anterior Tibiofemoral Glides on Knee Extension during Gait in Patients with Decreased Range of Motion after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this preliminary investigation was to evaluate the effect of anterior tibiofemoral glides on maximal knee extension and selected spatiotemporal characteristics during gait in patients with knee extension deficits after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Twelve patients with knee-extension deficits after recent ACL reconstructions underwent quantitative gait analyses immediately before and after 10 minutes of repeated anterior tibiofemoral glides on the operative limb, and again after a 10-minute seated rest period. RESULTS: Maximum knee extension during stance phase of the operative limb significantly increased immediately after the treatment (mean increase: 2.0°±4.1°, 95% CI: 0.6°-3.3°). Maximum knee extension decreased after the 10-minute rest period (mean decrease: 0.9°±1.8°, 95% CI: -0.1°-1.8°), although the decrease was not statistically significant. Small increases in operative limb step length, stride length, and gait speed were observed after the rest period compared to baseline values only. CONCLUSIONS: A single session of anterior tibiofemoral glides increases maximal knee extension during the stance phase of gait in patients with knee-extension deficits. Increases in knee extension are small and short-lived, however, suggesting that continued activity is required to maintain the observed improvements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".