Correlation between Running Surface Types and Risk of Iliotibial Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Running is a mostly performed sport by people, but it is important to pay attention to the running surface because it can be a factor of injuries experienced by runners. Running on a road runner track is preferred because it can reduce injuries by 32.4%. A study from the Vancouver Running Clinic, the frequency of experiencing Iliotibial Band Syndrome (ITBS) was 6.8% for men and 9.8% for women. This research was aimed to determine the relationship between the type of running surface and Iliotibial Band Syndrome (ITBS) injuries. This research is a correlational study using cross sectional approach. In this research, the non-probability sampling and incidental sampling techniques were used. This research involved 80 runners in the Special Region of Yogyakarta and Magelang City as subjects. The data collection instruments for this research included the Ober test for ITBS and a questionnaire for respondent history. Analysis of data regarding the relationship between the type of running surface and the incidence of Iliotibial Band Syndrome found no relationship. It shows that the type of running surface does not affect the incidence of Iliotibial Band Syndrome (ITBS) in runners. It is expected that this research can become a baseline or foundation for developing prevention of Iliotibial Band Syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".