Biomechanics of Changes in Lumbar Posture in Static Lifting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: In vivo measurements and model studies are combined to investigate the role of lumbar posture in static lifting tasks. OBJECTIVES: Identification of the role of changes in the lumbar posture on muscle forces, internal loads, and system stability in static lifting tasks with and without load in hands. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite the recognition of the causal role of lifting in spinal injuries, the advantages of preservation or flattening of the lumbar lordosis while performing lifting tasks is not yet clear. METHODS: Kinematics of the spine and surface EMG activity of selected muscles were measured in 15 healthy subjects under different forward trunk flexion angles and load cases. Apart from the freestyle lumbar posture, subjects were instructed to take either lordotic or kyphotic posture as well. A kinematics-based method along with a nonlinear finite element model were interactively used to compute muscle forces, internal loads and system stability margin under postures, and loads considered in in vivo investigations. RESULTS.: In comparison with the kyphotic postures, the lordotic postures increased the pelvic rotation, active component of extensor muscle forces, segmental axial compression and shear forces at L5-S1, and spinal stability margin while decreasing the passive muscle forces and segmental flexion moments. CONCLUSION: Alterations in the lumbar lordosis in lifting resulted in significant changes in the muscle forces and internal spinal loads. Spinal shear forces at different segmental levels were influenced by changes in both the disc inclinations and extensor muscle lines of action as the posture altered. Considering internal spinal loads and active-passive muscle forces, the current study supports the freestyle posture or a posture with moderate flexion as the posture of choice in static lifting tasks.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".