The Effect of Joint Hypermobility Syndrome on DOMS and Recovery Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous research has reported that people with Joint Hypermobility Syndrome (JHS) and Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) generally experience a high rate of muscular injury and pain. However, there is limited research comparing the recovery times and length of Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS) in individuals with JHS to non-hypermobile individuals in response to exercise. Hypotheses/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate JHS and its effects on DOMS and its recovery time. Study Design: Quasi-experimental, observational comparison. Methods: Two groups including a hypermobile group (score >4 on Beighton Scale) and a non-hypermobile group all took part in five-second long standing eccentric bicep curls based using their one- repetition maximum (1-RM) of their dominant arm to failure in order to induce DOMS. Visual analog pain scale (VAS), McGill pain scale, resting arm angle, girth, and the pressure pain threshold, all domains of DOMS, were measured over a five-day period. Results were analyzed using ANOVA with time as the repeated factor. Results: Both groups experienced DOMS following the eccentric exercise. However, VAS reporting was significantly greater in the hypermobile group compared to the non-hypermobile group and there was a significant difference over time. However, other variables did not reveal any other significant findings between groups. Conclusion: Individuals with JHS may experience greater DOMS and require more time to recover between treatment sessions. Therapists need to be aware that patients with hypermobility may experience higher pain levels related to exercise, and they need to adjust treatment parameters appropriately. Level of Evidence: 2b.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".