Intramuscular Hamstring Stiffness Affects Anatomically Modeled Localized Muscle Strain During Passive Hip Flexion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Rehbein, CO, McDougle, JM, Peñailillo, L, and Earp, JE. Intramuscular hamstring stiffness affects anatomically modeled localized muscle strain during passive hip flexion. J Strength Cond Res 38(11): 1860-1866, 2024-Hamstring strain injuries occur when localized tissue strain capacity is exceeded. Localized strain may be affected by intramuscular variation in stiffness, but research in this area is lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of intramuscular hamstring stiffness on localized muscle strain during passive hip flexion. Twenty-eight (age 25.0 ± 4.9 years) healthy women ( n = 15) and men ( n = 13) had biceps femoris, semitendinosus, and semimembranosus stiffness measured proximally, medially, and distally during passive hip flexion and extension using shear-wave elastography. Anthropometric and stiffness measurements were entered into an anatomical model of equivalent springs to estimate localized tissue strain and differentiate between the relative contribution to passive strain from each muscular region. In shortened and stretched positions, stiffness was lowest proximally for all muscles (Cohen's d = 0.66-0.79, p < 0.001). In addition, relative strain contribution was greater proximally (37.5-39.4%) compared with middle (31.74-32.2%) or distal (28.6-30.3%) regions ( p < 0.001), with proximal contribution to strain increasing with greater hip flexion. Our results suggest that intramuscular variations in passive hamstring stiffness contribute to inhomogeneous strain throughout the muscle during passive hip flexion. Given the prevalence of proximal stretch-pattern strain injuries, variation in intramuscular stiffness may contribute to risk for such injuries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".