Regional Vastus Medialis and Vastus Lateralis Activation in Females with Patellofemoral Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate whether regional activation patterns in the vasti muscles differ between females with and without patellofemoral pain (PFP), and whether muscle activation patterns correlate with knee extension strength. METHODS: Thirty-six females with PFP and 20 pain-free controls performed a standardized knee flexion-extension task. The activation of vastus medialis (VM) and vastus lateralis (VL) was collected using high-density surface EMG and analyzed using principal component (PC) analysis. Spatial locations and temporal coefficients of the PC, and the percent variance they explain, were compared between groups and between the concentric and the eccentric phases of the movement. Correlations were assessed between PC features and knee extension strength. RESULTS: The spatial weights of PC1 (general vasti activation) and PC2 (reflecting vastus-specific activation) were similar between groups (R > 0.95). Activation patterns in PFP were less complex than controls. Fewer PC features were necessary to reconstruct 90% of the signal for PFP participants in the concentric phase (P < 0.05), and the difference in bias of activation to VM (concentric phase) or VL (eccentric phase) was less between phases for PFP participants (P < 0.05). Smaller difference in vastus-specific activation in concentric and eccentric phases (less task specificity of VM/VL coordination) was related to greater maximal knee extension strength (P < 0.05, R < -0.43). CONCLUSION: These data suggest PFP involves a simpler control strategy of VM and VL. The inverse association between task specificity and maximal knee extension strength suggests different presentations of PFP: lower knee extension strength but VM/VL coordination task specificity comparable with controls, or knee extension strength comparable with controls but lower VM/VL coordination task specificity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".