Gluteus Medius for Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability: Assessing Muscle Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence has suggested that gluteus medius (GM) muscle activity may be critical for functional performance in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI). This study aimed to systematically review the literature to determine whether there are differences in GM muscle activity between individuals with and without CAI. A comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, and PEDro databases was undertaken from the year of inception to 10 June 2024. Studies that investigated GM muscle activity during physical activities in healthy controls or copers and individuals with CAI were included. The quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality scale (NOS). After review, forty studies (1840 participants) were included; NOS scoring for the included studies ranged from 5/9 to 9/9 stars. GM activity was reported for seven activities: walking (14 studies), stance-transition (four studies), jump-landing (13 studies), perturbation (six studies), balance (four studies), cutting (three studies), and other functional exercises (seven studies). The outcome measures selected to examine each task varied across studies, and electromyography (EMG) results were inconsistent. Overall, although the quality of the available studies was generally high, there were substantial methodological differences, and the activity of GM muscles in CAI participants compared to controls was equivocal. A consensus on standardization of GM muscle activity assessment reporting should be established to guide future studies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".