The influence of axis placement and subject position on measurement of isokinetic peak moment while using the Lido Active Back System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
{\it Purpose:} The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of varying the measurement axis of the subject relative to an isokinetic dynamometer on the peak flexion and extension moment of the trunk. The effect of testing position (sitting or standing) on peak moment was also investigated.{\it Methods:} Thirty healthy young subjects [8 male, 22 female] were selected at random from a pool of 90 volunteers and asked to perform concentric sagittal flexion-extension cycles at velocities of 60 deg/s, 120 deg/s and 180 deg/s in both the seated and standing position with respect to 5 measurement axes. The subjects were initially aligned with the highest point on the iliac crest(reference axis) and then aligned with 4 measurement axes displaced from the reference axis (25∼mm anterior/posterior and 50mm superior/inferior). {\it Results:} Two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant differences($\alpha < 0.05$) between peak moments recorded between axes and velocity for flexion and extension, however no difference with respect to testing position, i.e., sitting versus standing. Post hoc multiple comparison tests by the Scheff?method revealed that all measurement axes tested were statistically different [$P < 0.001$] from the reference axis, however there were no differences between the two inferior axes [$P = 0.999$] and the two superior axes [$P = 0.982$]. The inferior measurement axes consistently produced greater peak moments than the reference axis while the superior axes consistently produced lower peak moments than the reference axis. Males produced significantly greater peak moments than did females [$P = 0.000$]. {\it Conclusions:} Measurement axis alignment significantly effects the peak moment recorded. Furthermore, these results reinforce the need for accurate and consistent alignment between the subject and the dynamometer. The position of the subject [seated/standing] did not significantly affect the measured peak moment when using the Lido Active Back System in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".