Risk factors associated with exertional medial tibial pain: a 12 month prospective clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate in a military setting the potential role of intrinsic biomechanical and anthropometric risk factors for, and the incidence of, exertional medial tibial pain (EMTP). METHODS: A prospective clinical outcome study in a cohort of 122 men and 36 women at the Australian Defence Force Academy. Each cadet underwent measurements of seven intrinsic variables: hip range of motion, leg length discrepancy, lean calf girth, maximum ankle dorsiflexion range, foot type, rear foot alignment, and tibial alignment. Test-retest reliability was undertaken on each variable. A physician recorded any cadet presenting with diagnostic criteria of EMTP. Records were analysed at 12 months for EMTP presentation and for military fitness test results. RESULTS: 23 cadets (12 men, 11 women) met the criteria for EMTP after 12 months, with a cross gender (F/M) odds ratio of 3.1. In men, both internal and external range of hip motion was greater in those with EMTP: left internal (12 degrees, p = 0.000), right internal (8 degrees, p = 0.014), left external (8 degrees, p = 0.042), right external (9 degrees, p = 0.026). Lean calf girth was lower by 4.2% for the right leg (p = 0.040) but by only 2.9% for the left leg (p = 0.141). No intrinsic risk factor was associated with EMTP in women. EMTP was the major cause for non-completion of the run component of the ADFA fitness test in both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Greater internal and external hip range of motion and lower lean calf girth were associated with EMTP in male military cadets. Women had high rates of injury, although no intrinsic factor was identified. Reasons for this sex difference need to be identified.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".