Comportamiento de la musculatura del piso pélvico en mujeres corredoras entre 18 y 50 años a distintas velocidades de carrera: Revisión sistemática
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To systematize the evidence regarding the behavior of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) in women during running at different speeds, evaluating their activity in the presence or absence of urinary incontinence (UI). This review aims to describe PFM behavior in relation to electromyographic and kinematic variables. Methodology: A systematic search was conducted for articles published before October 1, 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies from the last 10 years analyzing the electromyographic and kinematic activity of the PFM were included. The databases consulted were PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were established using the PICOS framework, and methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (Registration No. INPLASY2024120062). Results: Seven out of 110 articles met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 60% described PFM preactivation before initial foot contact, reflecting anticipatory activity in response to increased ground reaction forces. Continent women demonstrated significantly greater electromyographic (EMG) intensity in high-frequency bands (110–200 Hz) prior to initial contact, whereas incontinent women exhibited altered activation and fiber recruitment patterns. No significant differences were found in kinematic variables between continent and incontinent women. The main limitation of the evidence is the small number of studies and their observational design, which increases the risk of bias. Conclusion: There is involuntary preactivation of the PFM during the phase preceding initial contact, suggesting muscular and tendon system preparation for impact force absorption. The PFM remain active with lower energy until the foot approaches the ground again
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".