Relationships Between Lumbar Flexibility, Sit-and-Reach Test, and a Previous History of Low Back Discomfort in Industrial Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sit-and-reach (S&R) test is often included in standard fitness tests (e.g., Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness and Lifestyle Appraisal [CPAFLA]), justified on the assumption that it is an indicator of low back health. Two issues were examined here: Is low back flexibility linked to having a history of low back disorders? And is the S&R test an indicator of low back flexibility? The relationship between S&R test scores, lumbar range of motion, and having a history of low back discomfort was examined in 72 asymptomatic (at test time) industrial workers (70 M, 2 F; mean age 35 ys; height 1.79 m; mass 84.7 kg). The S&R test, among many collected, was performed according to the CPAFLA guidelines. History of low back discomfort (LBD) was categorized based on whether or not time was lost from work. The S&R test was unable to distinguish between those with a history of LBD and those without. Specific lumbar sagittal range of motion could make this distinction. A moderate correlation (r = 0.42) surfaced between S&R and lumbar flexibility. This study suggests that the value of S&R as an indicator of previous back discomfort is questionable and there may be better indicators for inclusion in the CPAFLA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".