In Vivo Erector Spinae Muscle Blood Volume and Oxygenation Measures During Repetitive Incremental Lifting and Lowering in Chronic Low Back Pain Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A case control study. OBJECTIVES: Using metabolic gas analysis and near infrared spectroscopy, a comparison was made between healthy controls and chronic low back pain (LBP) participants on cardiorespiratory, erector spinae muscle blood volume, and oxygenation responses, and these variables were used to determine factors that best predict peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, it is unknown how the cardiorespiratory and erector spinae muscles of chronic LBP persons respond to repetitive incremental lifting and lowering. With the advent of near infrared spectroscopy technology, it is now possible to noninvasively examine erector spinae muscle oxygen supply and utilization in vivo. Thus, by using metabolic gas analysis and near infrared spectroscopy technology simultaneously, it is now possible to compare the cardiorespiratory and erector spinae muscle responses of chronic LBP participants to that of healthy controls (no history of LBP) during incremental work to volitional fatigue. METHODS: Thirty-four participants with chronic LBP and 34 healthy controls completed the repetitive incremental lifting and lowering (2.25 kg x min) protocol from floor to table (height 76 cm) at 10 lifts . min to voluntary fatigue. RESULTS: The healthy controls had significantly greater VO2peak (mL x kg x min) and VO2peak (mL x kgLBM x min), peak mass lifted, test duration, and breathing frequency. Furthermore, healthy controls showed significantly greater change in muscle oxygenation and faster one-half recovery times. Multiple regression analysis indicated that approximately 97% of the variance in absolute VO2peak was predicted by cardiorespiratory variables in both groups, while muscle oxygenation aided in predicting VO2peak relative in the LBP participants. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the chronic LBP participants demonstrated a reduced cardiorespiratory and erector spinae muscle response during repetitive incremental lifting and lowering to volitional fatigue as compared to the healthy controls.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".