Relationship between morphologic somatotypes and standing posture equilibrium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have identified height and weight as important factors affecting quiet standing stability but studies have not addressed body morphology as a global factor. Using anthropometric measurements, the morphologic somatotypes were defined in terms of body composition and structure. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that morphologic somatotypes were related to standing posture equilibrium in able-bodied girls. A total of 43 able-bodied girls having a mean age of 13.8 +/- 2.2 years participated in this study. Somatotype measurements were taken to determine their endomorphic, mesomorphic or ectomorphic components. Then, subjects were asked to stand still on a force platform for 64 s with their eyes opened, feet about 23 cm apart and arms aligned with the trunk. Afterwards, subjects were grouped based on the highest value of their somatotype component. There was no statistical difference in age, height and weight among the groups. The surface area of an ellipse delineated by the displacement of the centre of pressure (COP) was statistically larger (236.9 +/- 134.3 mm2) for the ectomorphs than for the endomorphs 137.7 +/- 71.4 mm2). The minor axis was longer (8.1 +/- 2.9 mm) for the ectomorphs than for the endomorphs (5.7 +/- 2.2 mm). The decrease in standing posture stability of the ectomorphic group was attributed to a relatively low muscle component, a high height weight ratio and an elevated position of the body centre of mass in this population of girls. Somatotypes should be considered when assessing standing posture in both able-bodied subjects and patients.
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) | 0.004 | 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".