Paraspinal Muscle Morphology and Composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to define the natural progression of age-related changes of the lumbar paraspinal muscles during adulthood and to investigate the influence of lifestyle and individual factors (e.g., physical activity levels at work and leisure, body mass index, and low back pain [LBP]). METHODS: This population-based longitudinal study included a sample of 99 adult male twins. Data were collected through a structured interview, physical examination, and magnetic resonance imaging. Measurements of the lumbar multifidus and erector spinae muscles were obtained from T2-weighted axial images at L3-L4 and L5-S1 at baseline and 15-yr follow-up. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), functional CSA (FCSA) (fat-free mass), and FCSA/CSA (composition) as well as CSA and FCSA asymmetry and FCSA/CSA side-to-side differences were measured. RESULTS: Subjects' mean ± SD age was 47.3 ± 7.4 yr at baseline and 62.3 ± 8.0 yr at follow-up. During the 15-yr period, both muscles exhibited a decrease in CSA and FCSA and an increase in fatty infiltration and side-to-side differences in size and composition at both spinal levels. Both muscles displayed greater changes at L5-S1 than L3-L4. Age and BMI were found to be significantly associated with the degree of paraspinal muscle changes over time. However, there was no association between the change in paraspinal muscle size, composition, or asymmetry with the level of physical demands at work or leisure or LBP history. CONCLUSIONS: The present longitudinal study suggests that over adulthood, the multifidus and erector spinae undergo similar morphological changes. Moreover, our findings suggest that the long-term progression of lumbar paraspinal muscle changes evaluated through magnetic resonance imaging are not associated with the range of physical demand levels as were typical of Finnish men or LBP history.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".