MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099852910 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2011.06.002

A Comparison of Trunk Muscle Activation Amplitudes During Gait in Older Adults With and Without Chronic Low Back Pain

2011· article· en· W2099852910 on OpenAlex
Edwin Hanada, Mark Johnson, Cheryl L. Hubley‐Kozey

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElectromyographyIsometric exercisePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBarefootGaitHeelLow back painTrunkLumbarPhysical therapyErector spinae musclesAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate abdominal and low back muscle activation amplitudes of older adults (at least 50 years of age) experiencing nonspecific chronic low back pain (LBP) and of adults without LBP while they walked on a level surface at a self-selected speed. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Dynamics of human motion laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Nine asymptomatic control participants (mean ± standard deviation: 64.9 ± 8.8 years) and 9 participants experiencing LBP (61.4 ± 9.8 years) were selected for this study. METHODS: Surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded over the bilateral lower rectus abdomini, internal obliques, lateral erector spinae longissimus, and lumbar multifidus muscle sites while participants walked across a pressure-sensor mat at a self-selected speed. To normalize EMG amplitudes during gait, the participants performed a series of maximal voluntary isometric contractions. EMG signals were full-wave rectified and low-pass filtered to yield a linear envelop waveform. For the gait trials, a window was identified from right heel strike to the second left heel strike and 4 subphases, including right and left loading response and mid stance, were identified. EMG amplitudes were calculated for each subphase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Two sample t-tests compared demographic information and spatiotemporal gait parameters between groups. EMG activation amplitude differences between groups and among subphases of gait were analyzed for each muscle with use of general linear models, followed by Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc comparisons. RESULTS: No differences were found between the groups for demographic or gait parameters. The control group participants activated their lower rectus abdomini muscles (P < .05) and right internal oblique muscles significantly more than did the LBP group (P < .05), whereas the LBP group activated their left lateral erector spinae and both lumbar multifidi sites significantly more than did the control group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The activation amplitudes of the anterior muscle sites were lower for participants with LBP, whereas the posterior sites were activated to higher amplitudes than in the control group. Although most muscles responded to the subphases indicating muscle synergies, the group by muscle interactions for the right internal oblique and lateral erector spinae show that the differences between groups were not systematic. These results describe neuromuscular alterations in persons between 50-80 years with LBP that can be used for developing subject-specific management related to maintaining spinal stability.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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