Gluteus Medius and Minimus Muscle Structure, Strength, and Function in Healthy Adults: Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This article describes gluteus medius and minimus muscle thickness and hip abductor strength and function in healthy adults and explores the relationships between muscle thickness and function. Methods: Gluteus medius and minimus muscle thickness (B-mode ultrasound), isometric hip abductor strength (Biodex dynamometer), and lower extremity function (timed Trendelenburg test, Five-Times-Sit-to-Stand Test [FTSST], and lateral step-down test) were measured in healthy adults using a cross-sectional study design. Results: A total of 22 subjects were included: 10 men and 12 women, mean age 25.2 (SD 3.1) years, mean BMI 22.9 (SD 3.5) kilograms per metre squared. Muscle thickness of the gluteals was a mean 3.88 (SD 0.13) centimetres, and mean hip abductor peak torque was 111 (SD 43) newton-metres. FTSST mean time was 5.3 (SD 0.2) seconds, and median scores were 2.0 points for lateral step-down and 90 seconds for timed Trendelenburg. No significant relationships were found between gluteal muscle thickness and functional tests (rs=−0.28 to 0.37, ps=0.09–0.80) or strength (r=−0.24, p=0.28). Conclusion: Although hip abductors are key pelvic stabilizers for functional movements, gluteal muscle thickness was not associated with strength or function. This may be a result of agonist muscle activity, leading to an inability to isolate the gluteals, and to the ceiling effects of the functional tests.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".