Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures design. OBJECTIVE: To describe male spine movement and posture characteristics during coitus and compare these characteristics across 5 common coital positions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Exacerbation of pain during coitus due to coital movements and positions is a prevalent issue reported by low back pain patients. A biomechanical analysis of spine movements and postures during coitus has never been conducted. METHODS: Ten healthy males and females engaged in coitus in the following preselected positions and variations: QUADRUPED, MISSIONARY, and SIDELYING. An optoelectronic motion capture system was used to measure 3-dimensional lumbar spine angles that were normalized to upright standing. To determine whether each coital position had distinct spine kinematic profiles, separate univariate general linear models, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference post hoc analysis were used. The presentation of coital positions was randomized. RESULTS: Both variations of QUADRUPED, mQUAD1 and mQUAD2, were found to have a significantly higher cycle speed than mSIDE (P = 0.043 and P = 0.034, respectively), mMISS1 (P = 0.003 and P = 0.002, respectively), and mMISS2 (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Male lumbar spine movement varied depending on the coital position; however, across all positions, the majority of the range of motion used was in flexion. Based on range of motion, the least-to-most recommended positions for a male flexion-intolerant patient are mSIDE, mMISS2, mQUAD2, mMISS1, and mQUAD1. CONCLUSION: Initial recommendations-which include specific coital positions to avoid, movement strategies, and role of the partner-were developed for male patients whose low back pain is exacerbated by specific motions and postures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".