Relationship Between Functional Movement Screen Scores, Core Strength, Posture, and Body Mass Index in School Children in Moldova
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of functionality should include parameters that consider postural control, limb asymmetries, range of motion limitations, proprioceptive deficits, and pain. An increasingly popular battery of tests, the Functional Movement Screen (FMS), is purported to assess the above named parameters. The purpose of our study was twofold: (a) to report differences in total FMS scores in children, provide preliminary normative reference values of each of the 7 individual FMS scores for both genders and report on asymmetries and (b) to evaluate the relationship between total FMS scores, age, body mass index (BMI), core strength/stability, and postural angles to explore the possibility of using the FMS in the assessment of children's functional fitness. Descriptive data on 77 children aged 8-11 years were collected. The children performed core strength/stability exercises. Photographs were taken from a lateral view for later calculation of postural angles. The children performed the FMS while being videotaped for later review. The average total FMS score (of 21) was 14.9 (+1.9), and BMI was 16.4 (+2.2). Static posture is not related to results of the FMS. Core strength was positively correlated to the total FMS score (r = 0.31; p = 0.006). Over 60% demonstrated at least 1 asymmetry. The individual test scores indicate that none of the test items is too difficult for the children. Based on the screen's correlation to core strength, and the fact that it identifies areas of asymmetry, we suggest to further investigate its possible use in the assessment of children's functional fitness.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".