Prevalence and Pain Distribution of Anterior Knee Pain in Collegiate Basketball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Causes of anterior knee pain (AKP) in jumping athletes include patellofemoral pain and patellar tendinopathy. The differential diagnosis of AKP is challenging, with variations in clinical presentations. No previous research has used pain location to describe AKP in basketball players. OBJECTIVE: To (1) describe the prevalence and pain distribution of AKP in collegiate basketball players and (2) report the prevalence of focal inferior pole pain using 2 outcome measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: University and collegiate basketball facilities in Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 242 collegiate basketball athletes (138 women, 104 men). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The single-legged decline squat test (SLDS) was used to capture pain location via pain mapping (dichotomized as focal or diffuse) and pain severity (numeric rating scale). The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre Knee questionnaire (OSTRC-Knee) and adapted version for patellar tendinopathy (OSTRC-Patellar Tendinopathy Questionnaire [OSTRC-P]) were used to report the prevalence of AKP and patellar tendinopathy, respectively. Focal inferior pole pain during the SLDS was used to classify patellar tendinopathy. RESULTS: Of the 242 players, 146 (60%) reported pain with the SLDS (unilateral = 64 [26%]; bilateral = 82 [34%]). A total of 101 (43%) described knee pain using the OSTRC-Knee. Pain mapping captured the variability in pain locations. Diffuse pain was more prevalent (left, 70%; right, 72%) than focal pain (left, 30%; right, 28%). Low prevalence of patellar tendinopathy was noted using the OSTRC-P (n = 21, 8.7%) and inferior pole pain during the SLDS (n = 25, 10.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Diffuse AKP was common in Canadian basketball players; however, pain mapped to the inferior pole of the patella was not common. Few players reported tendinopathy using the OSTRC-P, suggesting that patellar tendinopathy was not a primary knee pain presentation in this jumping cohort. Pain location, rather than the presence or severity of pain alone, may better describe the clinical presentation of AKP in jumping athletes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".