<i>In vivo</i> lumbar erector spinae oxygenation and blood volume measurements in healthy men during seated whole‐body vibration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to whole-body vibration is implicated as one of the occupational risk factors for lower back disorders; however, its influence on the lumbar muscle physiology is still poorly understood. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of backrest support and hand grip contractions on lumbar muscle oxygenation and blood volume responses during seated whole-body vibration using continuous dual-wave near-infrared spectroscopy. Thirteen healthy men were exposed to frequencies of 3, 4.5 and 6 Hz on a vibration simulator, in randomized order on separate days. Each day the duration of the protocol was 30 min. During the fifth minute of vibration 'with' and 'without' backrest support, participants performed maximal rhythmic hand grip contractions for 1 min. In general, erector spinae oxygenation and blood volume showed a trend to decrease with vibration exposure compared to the control condition. However, these responses were not influenced by the change in vibration frequency (P > 0.05). Sitting without backrest resulted in a greater decrease in oxygenation (by 27%, P = 0.02) and blood volume (by 11%, P = 0.05) than with backrest, implying a deficiency in oxygen supply owing to the sitting posture. Compared to the vibration-only condition, hand grip work decreased both oxygenation (by 22%, P = 0.003) and blood volume responses (by 13%, P = 0.04), suggesting that postural load due to prolonged sitting combined with physical activity during vibration might further burden paraspinal muscles. The influence of adipose tissue thickness of the lumbar muscle on optically derived oxygenation and blood volume changes was inconclusive.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".