Competitive Female Runners With a History of Iliotibial Band Syndrome Demonstrate Atypical Hip and Knee Kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional experimental laboratory study. OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in running mechanics between runners who had previously sustained iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) and runners with no knee-related running injuries. BACKGROUND: ITBS is the second leading cause of knee pain in runners and the most common cause of lateral knee pain. Despite its prevalence, few biomechanical studies have been conducted to better understand its aetiology. Because the iliotibial band has both femoral and tibial attachments, it is possible that atypical hip and foot mechanics could result in the development of ITBS. METHODS: The running mechanics of 35 females who had previously sustained ITBS were compared to 35 healthy age-matched and running distance-matched healthy females. Comparisons of hip, knee, and ankle 3-dimensional kinematics and internal moments during the stance phase of running gait were measured. RESULTS: The ITBS group exhibited significantly greater peak rearfoot invertor moment, peak knee internal rotation angle, and peak hip adduction angle compared to controls. No significant differences in peak rearfoot eversion angle, peak knee flexion angle, peak knee external rotator moment, or peak hip abductor moments were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Females with a previous history of ITBS demonstrate a kinematic profile that is suggestive of increased stress on the iliotibial band. These results were generally similar to those reported for a prospective study conducted within the same laboratory environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".