MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402387607 · doi:10.52057/erj.v4i1.40

Kinematic and Neuromuscular Deficiencies Phenotypes Associated With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome : a Cross-sectional Interventional Study Protocol

2024· article· en· W4402387607 on OpenAlexaff
Marvin Coleman, Dorian Sweidy, Camille Daste, Nicola Hagemeister, François Rannou, Marie‐Martine Lefèvre‐Colau, Alexandra Rören

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Rehabilitation Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationProtocol (science)Patellofemoral pain syndromeKinematicsPhysical therapyCross-sectional studyPhysicsPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The physiopathology of PFPS is multifactorial and includes static and dynamic dysfunctions which have not been fully elucidated to date. Among numerous classifications, a pragmatic classification distinguishes 3 major clinical phenotypes: PFPS with objective displacement of the patella, PFPS with extra-patellar alignment problem and PFPS without alignment problems. The relationships between the clinical and biomechanical factors are still unclear. Objective : The primary aim of this study is to describe and compare the kinematic deficiencies specifically associated with each of the 3 main clinical phenotypes. The secondary aim is to describe and compare neuromuscular deficiencies, postural and proprioceptive associated with each of the 3 main clinical phenotypes. Method: PHENOPAT is a comparative, non-randomized study. We will use the KneeKG device (EMOVI) to assess the 3D knee rotations, EoS Imaging to assess femoro-tibial alignment and isokinetic device to measure hip abductor, quadriceps and hamstrings muscle strength and endurance. The unipodal static and dynamic stability will be assessed by the Y test and posturography. We will compare the kinematic deficiencies using a rank comparison or a mean comparison test between 2 groups or between 3 groups according to the distribution of participants between the groups. Discussion: We expect to observe specific biomechanical factors correlated with each main clinical phenotypes. We wish that will help to enable a more specific diagnosis and treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Rehabilitation JournalSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207