Validation of shear wave elastography as a noninvasive measure of pelvic floor muscle stiffness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To investigate the validity of shear wave elastography (SWE) as a measure of stiffness of the puborectalis muscle by examining: (1) the relationship between puborectalis muscle stiffness and pelvic floor muscle (PFM) activation at different intensities; and (2) the relationship between puborectalis stiffness and pelvic floor morphometry during contractions at different intensities. Methods Fifteen healthy asymptomatic women performed 6‐s isometric PFM contractions at different intensities (0, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of maximal voluntary contraction) guided by intravaginal electromyography (EMG). Stiffness of the puborectalis muscle was measured using SWE by calculating the average shear modulus in regions of interest that contained puborectalis muscle fibers parallel to the transducer. Pelvic floor morphometry was assessed in the mid‐sagittal plane using transperineal B‐mode ultrasound imaging. Shear modulus, EMG (root mean square amplitude) and pelvic floor morphometry parameters were normalized to the value recorded during maximal voluntary contraction. To assess the relationship between stiffness and pelvic floor activation/morphometry, coefficient of determination ( r 2 ) was calculated for each participant and a group average was computed. Results Shear modulus and EMG were highly correlated (average r 2 ; left 0.90 ± 0.08, right 0.87 ± 0.15). Shear modulus also strongly correlated with bladder neck position ( x ‐axis horizontal coordinates relative to the pubic symphysis), anorectal rectal angle and position, levator plate angle, and antero‐posterior diameter of the levator hiatus (average r 2 : range 0.62–0.78). Conclusions These findings support the validity of SWE to assess puborectalis muscle stiffness in females. Stiffness measures were strongly associated with PFM EMG and pelvic floor morphometry and may be used to indirectly assess the level of activation of the puborectalis muscle without the use of more invasive techniques. By overcoming limitations of current assessment tools, this promising noninvasive and real‐time technique could enable important breakthrough in the pathophysiology and management of pelvic floor disorders.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".