MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115428381 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-45.4.344

Normative and Critical Criteria for Iliotibial Band and Iliopsoas Muscle Flexibility

2010· article· en· W2115428381 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsRunning Injury ClinicUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsIliopsoasInter-rater reliabilityInclinometerContext (archaeology)Flexibility (engineering)MedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOrthodonticsPsychologySurgeryRating scaleMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The Ober and Thomas tests are subjective and involve a "negative" or "positive" assessment, making them difficult to apply within the paradigm of evidence-based medicine. No authors have combined the subjective clinical assessment with an objective measurement for these special tests. OBJECTIVE: To compare the subjective assessment of iliotibial band and iliopsoas flexibility with the objective measurement of a digital inclinometer, to establish normative values, and to provide an evidence-based critical criterion for determining tissue tightness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Clinical research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred recreational athletes (125 men, 175 women; 250 in injured group, 50 in control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Iliotibial band and iliopsoas muscle flexibility were determined subjectively using the modified Ober and Thomas tests, respectively. Using a digital inclinometer, we objectively measured limb position. Interrater reliability for the subjective assessment was compared between 2 clinicians for a random sample of 100 injured participants, who were classified subjectively as either negative or positive for iliotibial band and iliopsoas tightness. Percentage of agreement indicated interrater reliability for the subjective assessment. RESULTS: For iliotibial band flexibility, the average inclinometer angle was -24.59 degrees +/- 7.27 degrees . A total of 432 limbs were subjectively assessed as negative (-27.13 degrees +/- 5.53 degrees ) and 168 as positive (-16.29 degrees +/- 6.87 degrees ). For iliopsoas flexibility, the average inclinometer angle was -10.60 degrees +/- 9.61 degrees . A total of 392 limbs were subjectively assessed as negative (-15.51 degrees +/- 5.82 degrees ) and 208 as positive (0.34 degrees +/- 7.00 degrees ). The critical criteria for iliotibial band and iliopsoas flexibility were determined to be -23.16 degrees and -9.69 degrees , respectively. Between-clinicians agreement was very good, ranging from 95.0% to 97.6% for the Thomas and Ober tests, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective assessments and instrumented measurements were combined to establish normative values and critical criterions for tissue flexibility for the modified Ober and Thomas tests.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it