The acute effects of running on pelvic floor morphology and function in runners with and without running-induced stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of a single running session on pelvic floor morphology and function in female runners, and to compare those with and without running-induced stress urinary incontinence (RI-SUI). METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study involved two groups: female runners who regularly experienced RI-SUI (n = 19) and runners who did not (n = 20). Pelvic floor muscle (PFM) properties were assessed using intravaginal dynamometry during maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) and during passive tissue elongation. The morphology of the pelvic floor was assessed at rest, during MVC and during maximal Valsalva maneuver (MVM) using 2D and 3D transperineal ultrasound imaging before and after a running protocol. Mixed-effects ANOVA models were used to compare all outcomes between groups and within-groups, including the interaction between group and time. Effect sizes were calculated. RESULTS: No changes in PFM function assessed using intravaginal dynamometry were observed in either group after the run. Significant and large within-group differences were observed on ultrasound imaging. Specifically, the area and antero-posterior diameter of the levator hiatus were larger after the run, the bladder neck height was lower after the run, and the levator plate length was longer after the run (p ≤ 0.05). At the peak MVM and MVC, the bladder neck height was lower after the run than before the run (p ≤ 0.05). No between-group differences were observed for any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Running appears to cause transient strain of the passive tissues of the female pelvic floor in runners both with and without RI-SUI, whereas no concurrent changes are observed in PFM contractile function.
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".