Secondary Plane Biomechanics of Iliotibial Band Syndrome in Competitive Female Runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) is the second leading cause of knee pain in runners and is the number one cause of lateral knee pain. The mechanisms by which runners develop ITBS are still poorly understood with few investigations looking at the contribution of the frontal and transverse planes of motion. It has been suggested increased motion in these planes would place greater tension on the ITB and result in ITBS over time. PURPOSE: To retrospectively examine the biomechanical differences between a control group with no history of ITBS, and a group who have previously sustained ITBS in the past. It was hypothesized that runners who had previously sustained ITBS would exhibit greater peak rearfoot eversion (RFEV), knee internal rotation (KIR), hip adduction (HADD), and hip internal rotation (HIR) angles. In addition greater knee frontal and transverse moments (KMOMY, KMOMZ) at initial impact peak of vertical ground reaction force were expected. METHODS: 35 female runners, between the ages of 18–45 who have previously sustained ITBS, were recruited for the study. 35 age and mileage match female runners who had never had any hip or knee injuries, served as the controls. Subjects ran along a 25M runway at a speed of 3.7 m/s. Data from 5 trials were averaged for analysis using One tail independent t-test's for group comparisons (p <0.05). RESULTS:TableThe ITBS group exhibited significantly greater KIR and HADD peak angles and greater KMOMY and KMOMZ compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that repetitive exposure to increased joint motion and loading over time would require greater restraint from the ITB and result in the cascade of events that cause ITBS. Prospective studies are necessary to more fully determine if these running biomechanics are predictive of future injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".