Normative and critical criteria for iliotibial band and iliopsoas muscle flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The Ober and Thomas tests are subjective and involve a "negative" or "positive" assessment, making them difficult to apply within the paradigm of evidence-based medicine. No authors have combined the subjective clinical assessment with an objective measurement for these special tests. Objective: To compare the subjective assessment of iliotibial band and iliopsoas flexibility with the objective measurement of a digital inclinometer, to establish normative values, and to provide an evidence-based critical criterion for determining tissue tightness. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Clinical research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Three hundred recreational athletes (125 men, 175 women; 250 in injured group, 50 in control group). Main Outcome Measure(s): Iliotibial band and iliopsoas muscle flexibility were determined subjectively using the modified Ober and Thomas tests, respectively. Using a digital inclinometer, we objectively measured limb position. lnterrater reliability for the subjective assessment was compared between 2 clinicians for a random sample of 100 injured participants, who were classified subjectively as either negative or positive for iliotibial band and iliopsoas tightness. Percentage of agreement indicated interrater reliability for the subjective assessment. Results: For iliotibial band flexibility, the average inclinometer angle was -24.59 degrees +/- 7.27 degrees. A total of 432 limbs were subjectively assessed as negative (-27.13 degrees +/- 5.53 degrees) and 168 as positive (-16.29 degrees +/- 6.87 degrees). For iliopsoas flexibility, the average inclinometer angle was -10.60 degrees +/- 9.61 degrees. A total of 392 limbs were subjectively assessed as negative (-15.51 degrees +/- 5.82 degrees) and 208 as positive (0.34 degrees +/- 7.00 degrees). The critical criteria for iliotibial band and iliopsoas flexibility were determined to be -23.16 degrees and -9.69 degrees, respectively. Between-clinicians agreement was very good, ranging from 95.0% to 97.6% for the Thomas and Ober tests, respectively. Conclusions: Subjective assessments and instrumented measurements were combined to establish normative values and critical criterions for tissue flexibility for the modified Ober and Thomas 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".