Hip-Abductor Strength and Endurance in Individuals With Recent and Long-Standing Patellofemoral Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Numerous studies report deficits in hip muscle performance in individuals with patellofemoral pain (PFP). However, the exact stage at which these deficits emerge and the impact of symptom duration remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare hip abductor strength and endurance based on the presence or absence of PFP and its duration. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: 68 with PFP and 29 pain-free controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We evaluated isometric maximal strength, isometric endurance, and dynamic endurance of hip abductors. Comparisons were made between participants with PFP and pain-free controls and among different PFP duration subgroups (< 12 months, ≥ 12 months, ≤ 6 months, > 24 months) and pain-free controls. RESULTS: Hip abductor isometric strength (% body mass [BM]) was significantly lower in the PFP group (203.8 ± 46.8) and all PFP subgroups (< 12 months: 203.9 ± 57.0; > 12 months: 203.7 ± 42.2) (≤ 6 months: 205.1 ± 59.6; > 24 months: 207.7 ± 41.9), compared to pain-free controls (254.6 ± 60.3). However, no significant differences were found between PFP subgroups. There were also no significant differences in hip abductor isometric or dynamic endurance between PFP group and pain-free controls, or between PFP subgroups and pain free controls. CONCLUSIONS: Hip abductors strength deficits emerge early in the course of PFP. However, further studies are needed to understand the observed lack of difference in endurance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".