Running kinetics and femoral trochlea cartilage characteristics in recreational and collegiate distance runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recreational running can benefit knee cartilage, but the relationship between competitive running and knee cartilage is unclear. We compared femoral cartilage between collegiate runners, recreational runners, and controls; and evaluated the association between running amount, running kinetics and femoral cartilage characteristics. Thirty collegiate runners, 30 recreational runners, and 30 controls completed ultrasound imaging of the femoral cartilage and running gait analysis. Outcomes included cartilage thickness, and echo-intensity from the medial and lateral femoral condyles; and the peak external knee flexion (KFM) and knee adduction moments. Cartilage outcomes were compared via one-way MANOVA. The associations between running kinetics, running amount, and femoral cartilage characteristics were assessed via linear regression models adjusted for sex. No differences were found in cartilage outcomes between groups (p = 0.067). Among recreational runners, a larger peak KFM was associated with lower medial femoral cartilage echo-intensity (ΔR2 = 0.176, Δp = 0.014). In collegiate runners, a greater self-reported running amount was associated with higher medial femoral cartilage (ΔR2 = 0.117, Δp = 0.046) and lateral cartilage (ΔR2 = 0.121, Δp = 0.042) echo-intensity. Cartilage did not differ between groups, but the association between running kinetics, running amount, and knee cartilage may vary between collegiate and recreational runners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".