Differences in pelvic floor muscle morphology and function between female runners with and without running‐induced stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the differences in pelvic floor muscle (PFM) morphology and function between female runners with and without running-induced stress urinary incontinence (RI-SUI). DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional, observational study. METHODS: Experienced female runners were recruited into two groups: runners who regularly experience RI-SUI (n = 19) and runners who do not (n = 20). Active and passive pelvic floor muscle (PFM) properties were assessed using intravaginal dynamometry during maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) and during passive tissue elongation. The morphology of the urethra and PFMs was assessed using 2D and 3D transperineal ultrasound imaging. Independent t tests or Mann-Whitney U were used as appropriate to test group differences on all study outcomes, and Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated. RESULTS: The rate of force development during the MVC was significantly higher in participants reporting RI-SUI (p ≤ 0.05) and conversely, significantly lower during passive elongation of the PFMs (p ≤ 0.05) compared to runners with no history of leakage. Concurrently, the extent of bladder neck elevation between rest and maximum voluntary activation was significantly higher among those with RI-SUI compared to those without. Although not significant, small to moderate effect sizes were observed for other outcomes-active force outcomes measured during MVC tended to be higher in runners with RI-SUI, while passive force outcomes measured during passive tissue elongation tended to be lower. The cross-sectional area of the urethral wall and the area of the levator hiatus tended to be larger in runners with RI-SUI compared to those without. CONCLUSION: Runners who experience RI-SUI demonstrate better PFM contractile function but lower passive support when compared to their continent counterparts.
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".