Effects of changes in muscle activation level and spine and hip posture on erector spinae fiber orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: During lumbar flexion, the fiber orientation of the lumbar erector spinae (LES) muscle becomes oriented more along the spine compressive axis. It is unknown how changes in LES activation effect fiber orientation. METHODS: Ultrasound images of LES were collected during 2 sets of experimental conditions: (1) varying levels of LES activation while lying prone; and (2) varying spine and hip angles while seated. Electromyographic activity and lumbar spine and hip angles were also recorded. RESULTS: As LES activation increased, increases in fiber orientation (signifying increased orientation along the posterior shear axis) were found (P<0.001). Compared with the relaxed sitting posture, decreases in fiber orientation were found with full spine flexion and combined spine and hip flexion (P<0.001), but there were no changes with full hip flexion alone. CONCLUSIONS: Activation magnitude and spine posture both affect LES fiber orientation, thus modifying its ability to protect the spine against anterior shear forces.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".