PAIN, FUNCTION, AND STRENGTH OUTCOMES FOR MALES AND FEMALES WITH PATELLOFEMORAL PAIN WHO PARTICIPATE IN EITHER A HIP/CORE- OR KNEE-BASED REHABILITATION PROGRAM.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip exercise has been recommended for females with patellofemoral pain (PFP). It is unknown if males with PFP will benefit from a similar treatment strategy. HYPOTHESES/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare improvements in pain, function, and strength between males and females with PFP who participated in either a hip/core or knee rehabilitation program. The directional hypothesis was that females would respond more favorably to the hip/core rehabilitation program and males to the knee program. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized-controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to a six-week hip/core or knee rehabilitation program. Visual analog scale (VAS), Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS), and hip and knee isometric strength were collected before and after subjects completed the rehabilitation program. Data were analyzed using an intention-to-treat basis. Separate mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures were used to determine changes in VAS and AKPS and strength changes for subjects classified as treatment responders (successful outcome) and non-responders (unsuccessful outcome). RESULTS: > 0.05) strength changes. CONCLUSION: On average, males and females with PFP benefitted from either a hip/core or knee rehabilitation program. Subjects with successful outcomes likely had hip and knee weakness that responded well to the intervention. These males and females had similar and meaningful improvements in hip extensor and knee extensor strength. Only males had relevant changes in hip external rotator strength. Clinicians should consider a subgroup of males who may benefit from hip extensor and external rotator exercise and females who may benefit from hip extensor exercise. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".