Trunk neuromuscular pattern alterations during a controlled functional task in a low back injured group deemed ready to resume regular activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trunk neuromuscular alterations have been found in those with chronic low back pain, but less well studied are whether responses are altered in those deemed recovered following an injury. Furthermore, coordinated trunk muscle responses are deemed important for normal spinal function, but there are no studies of temporal patterns early after a low back injury. Determining whether altered trunk muscle patterns exist early after injury could improve our understanding of recovery by providing an objective assessment of functional recovery and risk of re-injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine if amplitude and temporal characteristics of trunk neuromuscular patterns differ during a dynamic functional task in a group of participants with recent (within 12 weeks) low back injury (LBI), but deemed ready to resume normal activities, when compared to those with no similar history of injury (ASYM). PARTICIPANTS: 35 participants in each group (17 females) were matched for age and body mass index (BMI); (ASYM 36 yrs, BMI 26, LBI 39 yrs, BMI 27). METHODS: Participants performed a controlled lifting task (2.9 kg) in a standing maximum reach position, which altered frontal and sagittal plane moments of force. Electromyographic activity of 24 trunk muscle sites, as well as thoracic and pelvis position via an electromagnetic sensor was collected. Principal component analyses extracted the temporal and amplitude waveform patterns. Mixed model ANOVAs tested for effects (p< 0.05) in the main patterns. Preliminary data regarding re-injury status after 1 year was included. RESULTS: Three principal patterns explained 97% of the variance, with the LBI group demonstrating increased amplitude and a more constant level of activity compared to the ASYM group. The LBI group also demonstrated more thoracic motion in all 3 axes during this highly constrained task. The no re-injury group had lower activation than the re-injury group, but similar temporal patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the perception of readiness to return to work and low pain scores, the temporal and amplitude muscle activation patterns were altered in this LBI group indicating that differences exist compared to a non-low back injured group. The differences are not just relative amplitude differences among muscles but include differences in the temporal response to the flexion moment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".