MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283794069 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.912839

Characterizing Pelvic Floor Muscle Activity During Walking and Jogging in Continent Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

2022· article· en· W4283794069 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison M. M. Williams, Maya Sato-Klemm, Emily G. Deegan, Gevorg Eginyan, Tania Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationWilcoxon signed-rank testGaitGait cycleElectromyographySTRIDEPhysical therapyPsychologyRank correlationPreferred walking speedMedicineMathematicsStatisticsMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The pelvic floor muscles (PFM) are active during motor tasks that increase intra-abdominal pressure, but little is known about how the PFM respond to dynamic activities, such as gait. The purpose of this study was to characterize and compare PFM activity during walking and jogging in continent adults across the entire gait cycle. Methods 17 able-bodied individuals (8 females) with no history of incontinence participated in this study. We recorded electromyography (EMG) from the abdominal muscles, gluteus maximus (GM), and PFM while participants performed attempted maximum voluntary contractions (aMVC) of all muscles and completed 60–70 strides in four gait conditions: slow walk (1 km/h); regular walk (self-selected comfortable pace); transition walk (self-selected fastest walking pace); jog (same speed as transition walking). We quantified activity throughout the whole gait cycle (%aMVCGC) and during periods of bursting (%aMVCBR) for each participant, and analyzed the timing of PFM bursting periods to explore when the PFM were most active in the gait cycle. We also conducted a phase metric analysis on the PFM and GM burst timings. We performed a Spearman's rank-order correlation to examine the effect of speed on %aMVCGC, %aMVCBR, and phase metric score, and used the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test to evaluate the effect of gait modality, matched for speed (walking vs. jogging), on these variables. Results The PFM were active throughout the gait cycle, with bursts typically occurring during single-leg support. The PFM and GM were in phase for 44–69% of the gait cycle, depending on condition. There was a positive correlation between gait speed and both %aMVCGC and %aMVCBR (p < 0.001). Phase metric scores were significantly higher during jogging than transition walking (p = 0.005), but there was no difference between gait modality on %aMVCGC or %aMVCBR (p = 0.059). Where possible we disaggregated data by sex, although were unable to make statistical comparisons due to low sample sizes. Conclusion The PFM are active during walking and jogging, with greater activity at faster speeds and with bursts in activity around single-leg support. The PFM and GM co-activate during gait, but are not completely in phase with each other.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207