A Review of Literature on the Diagnosis, Clinical Implications, and Treatment of Diastasis Recti in Older Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To provide information on objective diagnostic methods, clinical implications, and appropriate interventions for older male patients presenting with signs and symptoms indicative of diastasis recti. Methods: Searches were conducted for the diagnosis, clinical implications, and treatment of diastasis recti to provide an analysis on current published data. Because of a limited amount of published work directly related to diastasis recti in males, broad search criteria were utilized. References of selected articles were searched for additional articles appropriate to the aforementioned topics and a current list of relevant studies was compiled. Results: Several articles were reviewed on appropriate tools and techniques to evaluate the presence or absence of diastasis recti. Articles analyzed to determine clinical implications in older males presenting with diastasis recti indicated the importance of taking a thorough subjective history to determine appropriate treatment approaches and establishing awareness clinically of potential underlying conditions that may indicate when further screening is appropriate for patients. Discussion: Although diastasis recti in males is relatively rare, physical therapists should be aware of clinical methods for diagnosis, possible implications indicating the need for further screening, and intervention approaches that address anatomical and functional relationships between the anterior abdominal wall, low back, and pelvic floor, when working with patients.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".