Development and Verification of a Protocol to Quantify Hip Joint Kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The butterfly save technique is commonly used by ice hockey goaltenders and has recently been identified as a potential mechanism for hip joint injuries due to the extreme body positions involved. Unfortunately, commonly used kinematic marker sets that determine these body positions are heavily influenced by skin motion artifact and are obscured by protective equipment, making it difficult to obtain reliable measures of hip motion. PURPOSE: To create a new kinematic protocol that could be used when protective equipment prevents typical marker placements and to use this protocol to quantify hip kinematics and butterfly performance in 4 different goalie pad conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A new marker set consisting of marker clusters attached to the lateral thigh and posterior leg was developed. This marker set was verified by evaluating the root mean square (RMS) difference between the developed testing marker set and the calibrated anatomic systems technique marker set during passive range of motion (ROM) tests. The testing marker set was then used in a repeated-measures study in which 12 junior goaltenders performed 5 butterfly movements on synthetic ice, in 4 different goalie pad conditions (control, flexible-wide leg channel, flexible-tight leg channel, and stiff-wide leg channel). RESULTS: The grouped RMS differences and SDs calculated during verification were 1.43° ± 0.41°, 1.0° ± 0.39°, and 3.32° ± 1.32° for hip flexion-extension, abduction-adduction, and internal-external rotation, respectively. There was no significant main effect of goal pad condition on the peak amount of hip internal rotation; however, there was a significant main effect of goal pad condition on the butterfly width (P = .022). Post hoc comparisons revealed that the butterfly width was significantly smaller in the control pad condition compared with the flexible-tight pad condition (P = .03). CONCLUSION: The new marker set enabled measurements of hip joint kinematics while subjects are wearing protective equipment that are not possible with other marker sets. Interindividual variations in performance of the butterfly technique influenced the amount of hip internal rotation achieved; however, on average, goaltenders exceeded their active internal ROM during butterfly movements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Exceeding internal rotation range of hip motion may make goaltenders susceptible to hip injuries such as femoral acetabular impingement.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".