Evaluation of Methods for the Quantification of the Flexion-Relaxation Phenomenon in the Lumbar Erector Spinae Muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are various methods to quantify the flexion-relaxation phenomenon (FRP); however, there is little standardization. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of various quantification methods in terms of their ability to identify lumbar erector spinae flexion-relaxation during standing forward trunk flexion. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional design in a laboratory setting. Lumbar erector spinae activation levels were measured in 12 male participants performing full trunk flexion movements. Electromyographical signals were assessed using 16 criteria within 4 quantification methods (visual, statistical, threshold, ratio), and the sensitivity of each was assessed relative to the benchmark criterion (visual inspection of raw electromyography data). RESULTS: Visual inspection and most of the threshold and ratio criteria displayed the highest sensitivity. On average (SD) across the 16 criteria, FRP was positively identified 21.6 (6.2) times of 24 data sets (12 participants, 2 muscles). The visual inspection criteria positively identified FRP in all 24 trials, whereas the statistical method did not identify FRP at all (P = .44 and P = .46 for the left and right sides, respectively). The threshold and ratio criteria positively identified FRP 23.2 (1.5) and 22.5 (3.7) times, on average, respectively. Results from criteria based on differences between upright and fully flexed muscle activation tended to be conservative in FRP identification. The methods were classified as reliable or nonreliable, based on their sensitivity when specific characteristics were evident in the electromyography signals. CONCLUSIONS: Although many of the criteria identified FRP with 100% sensitivity, others produced unrealistic results. The latter may be suitable for other experimental designs or may require reevaluation regarding their ability to identify FRP. Although visual inspection, threshold, or ratio methods performed well and may be appropriate for either biomechanical or clinical research, the threshold method provided the optimal trade-off between performance, consistency, and feasibility for these data.
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 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".