MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Pelvic Asymmetry and Low Back Pain on Trunk Kinematics During Sitting: A Comparison With Standing

2006· article· en· W2076844977 on OpenAlexaff
Einas Al-Eisa, David Egan, Kevin J. Deluzio, Richard J. Wassersug

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSittingTrunkMedicineKinematicsLow back painRange of motionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLumbarPelvisPhysical therapyAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Study Design. A prospective study was conducted on a group of patients with unilateral nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and healthy controls. Objectives. To answer 3 questions: (1) Does pelvic asymmetry measured in standing affect the dynamics of motion performed in sitting? (2) Do patients with LBP perform trunk motions differently from non-LBP participants in sitting position? and (3) Do the kinematics of lateral flexion and axial rotation differ between sitting and standing positions? Summary of Background Data. The effect of pelvic asymmetry on trunk motion while sitting remains unclear. LBP has been associated with altered trunk kinematics in standing; however, there is limited information available describing trunk kinematics in sitting position in comparison to standing. Methods. Pelvic asymmetry was measured in 54 patients with unilateral nonspecific LBP and 59 control subjects. A motion-analysis system was used to test the range and symmetry of lateral flexion and axial rotation in sitting and standing positions. Bivariate correlations, regression, multivariate analysis of variance, and paired sample t tests were used to test for associations between variables and differences between groups. Results. We found significant: (1) correlations between pelvic asymmetry and asymmetric trunk motion performed in sitting, (2) differences between the LBP and control groups in patterns of trunk motion performed in a sitting posture, and (3) differences between kinematics of motions performed in sitting versus standing postures. Conclusions. This study shows a link between pelvic asymmetry and altered trunk motion in sitting position. We suggest that people with LBP may have a distinct compensatory mechanism, secondary to pelvic asymmetry, which puts the lumbar spine under higher stress. Movement asymmetry, rather than range of motion, may be a better indicator of disturbed function for people with LBP. Structural and functional asymmetries are factors that may be considered in the seating design and work environment. We examined the association between subtle pelvic asymmetry and patterns of trunk motion in sitting subjects with low back pain (LBP) versus asymptomatic controls. The LBP group had higher movement asymmetry in the lumbar region, which correlated with pelvic asymmetry. It seems that compensation secondary to pelvic asymmetry may be excessive in the lumbar region in people with LBP, which may put the lumbar spine under higher stress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations143
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207