Evaluation of ligament laxity during pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pregnancy-related changes in ligament laxity have been shown to be associated with various disorders such as back pain or pelvic floor disorders. The purpose of this study was to assess laxity changes during pregnancy by confronting different methods in order to suggest a simple clinical tool helping to prevent the aforementioned problems. DESIGN: Seventeen pregnant women were evaluated at the first, second and third trimesters as cases and 16 non-pregnant women participated as controls. Ligamentous laxity was measured using an extensometer for the metacarpophalangeal joint of the index, a fingertip to floor test and a sit and reach test to assess hip and lumbar flexibility and the Beighton score. Statistical analysis included independent samples t-tests, analysis of variance and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Laxity of the metacarpophalangeal joint increased by 11% from the first to the second trimester of pregnancy and stabilized until delivery. The Beighton score was significantly higher in the second trimester of pregnancy (p < 0.05). The flexibility of the hip and lumbar vertebra showed a significant increase of the distance measured between the foot soles and the middle fingers at third trimester (p < 0.05). A moderate correlation was observed between the results given by the extensometer and the Beighton score in both the cases and the control group at first trimester (r = 0.60, p < 0.05) but none was found for the two hip and lumbar flexibility tests. CONCLUSION: Laxity reached its maximum at the second trimester. The combination of an objective measurement by the extensometer and a global evaluation of the laxity by the Beighton' score for example may be useful for a daily assessment of laxity. However, the chosen clinical tests don't seem appropriate to be used alone in pregnant women.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".