Comparison Between Elderly and Young Males' Lumbopelvic Extensor Muscle Endurance Assessed During a Clinical Isometric Back Extension Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endurance of the back extensor muscles has become important for clinical decisions that guide interventions, particularly for chronic low back pain patients. Very little information is available regarding back muscle endurance in the elderly. The aim of this study was to investigate back extensor muscle endurance in healthy elderly subjects during a modified Sorensen test. METHODS: Sixteen elderly and 20 young male adults participated in our cross-sectional study. The subjects performed a modified Sorensen test (on a 45 degrees Roman chair) to quantify lumbopelvic extensor muscle endurance. Pre and postfatigue back extension maximal voluntary force was assessed according to an isometric lift test in a semicrouched position. Endurance time, perceived exertion (Borg CR10 scale), and postfatigue reduction of lifting force were recorded and compared among groups. RESULTS: Elderly subjects showed a trend toward decreased endurance time compared to young adults, but the difference was not significant. Similar perceived exertion and diminished maximal force after the fatiguing protocol were observed in both young and elderly subjects. Maximal isometric lift force was significantly associated with endurance time in young but not in elderly subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbopelvic extensor muscle endurance and perceived exertion do not differ between young and healthy elderly individuals. However, back muscle endurance seems to be modulated by different neurophysiologic factors in the elderly. Normative data on young adults should be interpreted with caution in assessing back fitness in elderly subjects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".