Development of discomfort and vascular and muscular changes during a prolonged standing task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Some proposed mechanisms for the development of back discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders relate to fatigue of trunk musculature, but these phenomena require further investigation. Hydrostatic pressure changes in vascular tissue are thought to drive development of lower limb discomfort and vascular disorders; however, specific vascular outcomes during standing work have not been investigated experimentally. Objectives: The goals of this experiment were to evaluate the effects of standing work on indicators of discomfort and on biological variables related to risk for trunk musculoskeletal andlower limb vascular disorders. Methods: Ten university-aged female volunteers, who did not work in jobs requiring prolonged standing, moved small objects between two containers for 32 minutes while standing. Electromyography from the erector spinae and rectus abdominis, lower limb blood flow data, brachial and ankle blood pressure, heart rate, and discomfort ratings were collected every 4 minutes. Results: There were no significant changes in electromyography outcomes for either muscle group. Foot and soleus blood flow (p < 0.05) and ankle blood pressure (p < 0.05) increased over time. There were strong correlations (> 0.8) between lower limb discomfort (feet and knees) and blood flow in the foot and soleus. Conclusions: Blood pooling may explain the discomfort associated with the simulated standing work evaluated here, and this vascular indicator should be tracked when attempting to alleviate lower limb symptoms in various working postures. Additional work is needed to determine which musculoskeletal indicators might explain back discomfort during standing.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".