Passive hip movement measurements related to dynamic motion during gait in hip osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced sagittal plane range of motion (ROM) has been reported in individuals with hip osteoarthritis (OA) both during walking and passive testing. The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between hip extension ROM recorded during gait and passive hip extension ROM in individuals with moderate and severe hip OA, in comparison to an asymptomatic group. Sagittal plane hip ROM was calculated using skin surface marker trajectories captured during treadmill walking at self-selected speed. Passive hip ROM was measured using standardized position and recording procedures with a goniometer. Sagittal plane extension, flexion, and overall ROM were measured dynamically and passively. A two-way mixed model analysis of variance determined significant differences between groups and between passive and dynamic ROM (α = 0.05). Pearson correlations determined relationships between passive and dynamic ROM. Significant group by ROM interactions were found for flexion and extension ROM (p < 0.05). For extension, the severe OA group had less dynamic and passive ROM compared to the other groups and greater passive than dynamic ROM (p < 0.05). For flexion, significant differences in passive ROM existed between all three groups (p < 0.05) whereas no differences were found for dynamic flexion (p < 0.05). Significant correlations between dynamic and passive hip extension were found in the moderate (r = 0.596) and severe OA (r = 0.586) groups, and no correlation was found in the asymptomatic group (r = 0.139). Passive ROM explains variance in dynamic ROM measurements obtained during gait in individuals with moderate and severe hip OA which have implications for the design of treatment strategies targeting walking pathomechanics. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:1790-1797, 2016.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".