The Effect of Phase of Menstrual Cycle on Joint Mobility in the Cervical Spine and Extremities in Nulliparous Women: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the range of motion (ROM) of various joints in women throughout the menstrual cycle to determine whether there would be a difference in the ROM between the luteal and follicular phases during extension at the fifth metacarpophalangeal joint and bilateral rotation of the cervical spine in young adult nulliparous women. METHODS: Sixteen nulliparous women of childbearing age (mean age, 26 years) were recruited from the academic institution where the study was being performed. Participants were randomized into and tested during either the luteal or follicular phases of the menstrual cycle. In the following month, participants were tested in the opposite phases of the menstrual cycle. All testing was performed by a doctor of chiropractic. Differences in ROM were measured in single joint movements (fifth digit hyperextension) and in multijoint movements (bilateral cervical rotation) using an electromagnetic sensor system. RESULTS: No significant effects of phase were found on peak ROM of the fifth digit or during cervical spine rotation (left, right, or bilaterally), irrespective of trial. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in ROM of the cervical spine or the fifth metacarpophalangeal joint, regardless of the phase of menses, suggesting there is likely no hormonal influence on these structures during the follicular or luteal phases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".