Isometric torso muscle endurance profiles in adolescents aged 15–18: normative values for age and gender differences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish normative values for torso muscle endurance in adolescents aged 15-18 years. It was hypothesized that torso endurance profiles of adolescents differs between males and females and between adolescents and adults. BACKGROUND: Decreased torso muscle endurance has been identified as a potential personal risk factor for low back pain development in both adolescents and later years together with being detrimental for athletic performance. DESIGN: Measurement of torso muscle endurance, established through four tests performed in random order in a healthy adolescent population. SETTING: High school in Novi Sad, Province of Vojvodina, Republic of Serbia. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-four adolescents from one high school (178 males and 116 females) were grouped into four age strata. Selected isometric torso muscle endurance tests were: Biering-Sørensen test for extensor endurance; Flexor endurance test; right and left Side Bridge tests. The mean, ratio, standard deviation and 25th, 50th and 75th percentile scores were determined for each gender/age strata. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Males had higher lateral torso endurance than females. Adolescents in general demonstrate their peak lifetime endurance as they appear more endurable than children and comparable adult groups. These data of endurance times, their ratios and percentiles in healthy normal subjects form a database bridging existing data for children and adults that may be useful for guiding training and rehabilitation.
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.
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 it