Running gait modifications can lead to immediate reductions in patellofemoral pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gait modifications are commonly advocated to decrease knee forces and pain in runners with patellofemoral pain (PFP). However, it remains unknown if clinicians can expect immediate effects on symptoms. Our objectives were (1) to compare the immediate effects of gait modifications on pain and kinetics of runners with PFP; (2) to compare kinetic changes in responders and non-responders; and (3) to compare the effects between rearfoot strikers (RFS) and non-RFS. Sixty-eight runners with PFP (42 women, 26 men) ran normally on a treadmill before testing six modifications: 1- increase step rate by 10%; 2- 180 steps per minute; 3- decrease step rate by 10%; 4- forefoot striking; 5- heel striking; 6- running softer. Overall, there were more responders (pain decreased ≥1/10 compared with normal gait) during forefoot striking and increasing step rate by 10% (both 35%). Responders showed greater reductions in peak patellofemoral joint force than non-responders during all conditions except heel striking. When compared with non-RFS, RFS reduced peak patellofemoral joint force in a significant manner ( P < 0.001) during forefoot striking (partial η 2 = 0.452) and running softer (partial η 2 = 0.302). Increasing step rate by 10% reduced peak patellofemoral joint force in both RFS and non-RFS. Forty-two percent of symptomatic runners reported immediate reductions in pain during ≥1 modification, and 28% had reduced pain during ≥3 modifications. Gait modifications leading to decreased patellofemoral joint forces may be associated with immediate pain reductions in runners with PFP. Other mechanisms may be involved, given that some runners reported decreased symptoms regardless of kinetic changes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".