THE INFLUENCE OF HIP JOINT ANGLE ON THE RATIO BETWEEN ADDUCTION AND ABDUCTION TORQUE IN EXPERIENCED, RECREATIONAL MALE ICE HOCKEY PLAYERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strains of the adductor muscle group of the hip are common amongst ice hockey players. The ratio of isometric strengths between the hip adductors and abductors has been offered as a risk factor for hip adductor strain; however, there is no description for how the ratio between hip adductor and abductor strength varies as a function of hip abduction angle. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of hip joint abduction angle on measured ratios of hip adduction to abduction torque in experienced, recreational, male hockey players. The primary null hypothesis for this study was that hip joint abduction angle would not influence hip adduction-to-abduction torque ratios in male hockey players. STUDY DESIGN: Counterbalanced observational cohort. METHODS: Twelve uninjured, male, recreational hockey players, with a minimum experience level of midget AAA/minor competitive or equivalent. Participants performed maximal isometric side-lying hip adduction and abduction exertions against a rigidly constrained load cell at 0, 10, and 20 degrees of hip abduction. Measured peak torques from each exertion were used to derive the hip adductor-to-abductor torque ratio. Kinematics of the trunk, pelvis, and lower limbs were monitored using an optoelectronic motion capture system. RESULTS: = 0.895). Small changes in hip angle during the exertion were coincident with exertion direction, which confirmed the isometric nature of the task. CONCLUSION: Hip abduction angle has a significant impact on the measured adductor-to-abductor torque ratio. The ratio increased due to a combination of increased adductor torque and decreased abductor torque as the hip abduction angle increased. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".