An Investigation of Neck Muscle Activity in Asymptomatic Participants Who Show Different Lumbar Spine Motion Patterns During Prone Hip Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current study was to investigate whether any differences exist in the activity of the cervical erector spinae and upper trapezius (TRA) muscles between asymptomatic participants who show "normal" and "abnormal" lumbar spine motion patterns during the prone hip extension (PHE) test. METHODS: Twenty-six asymptomatic participants recruited from a chiropractic college participated in the study. Surface electromyography was used to record the activity of the cervical erector spinae and upper TRA muscles as each participant performed a set of 4 repetitions of PHE for each leg. An examiner observed the participant perform the movement and classified him/her as "positive" or "negative" based on the presence or absence (respectively) of 1 of 3 lumbar spine motion patterns. The mean activity levels of each muscle during the positive sets of PHE were compared with those during the negative sets. RESULTS: The mean activity of the upper TRA ipsilateral to the side of hip extension was significantly higher in the positive group compared with the negative group (difference, 13.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2%-24.4%; P = .0465). No other significant between-group differences were noted. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that the presence of abnormal lumbar spine motion patterns during the PHE test may be associated with altered cervicothoracic motor control strategies in asymptomatic individuals. Similar investigations using patients with neck pain are required to comment further on the generalizability and potential clinical importance of these findings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".