Do pelvic stabilization and lower-limb position affect isometric trunk extension strength?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of pelvic stabilization and lower-limb configuration on trunk extension strength and to test whether sex modify these effects. Twenty-two healthy volunteers (11 women and 11 men: SEX factor), age range 20–55 years participated in this study. Two isometric maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) were performed in extension and the moment was calculated relative to L5/S1, for each of six experimental conditions. Two different positions were tested (POSITION factor): I) seated position (knees at 90°) and II) semi-sitting position (knees at 45°). In each POSITION, three pelvic stabilization conditions were tested(STABILIZATION factor): (1) unrestrained (control condition), (2) partially restrained (posteriorly) and (3) totally restrained (posteriorly and anteriorly). No significant main effects (p> 0.05) and no double and triple(SEX × STABILIZATION × POSITION) interaction reached statistical significance. Consequently, maximal trunk extension moment can be achieved with the use of various stabilization and positioning modalities, at least when the same apparatus allows such flexibility, and this as much in women as in men subjects. These results have implications for the assessment of trunk extension strength during pre- and post-training regiments during a rehabilitation program for strengthening of back muscles in patients with low back pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".