Abdominal muscle activation of elite male golfers with chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to determine whether elite male golfers with chronic low back pain (CLBP) exhibit different abdominal muscle activity patterns during the golf swing than asymptomatic control (AC) golfers and 2) to determine whether elite male golfers with CLBP experience greater fatigue in the abdominal muscles than AC golfers after a typical practice session. METHODS: Surface EMG data were collected bilaterally from the rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), and internal oblique (IO) muscles. Muscle activity during the golf swing was measured using the root mean square (RMS) of the EMG signal in various phases of the golf swing. Fatigue was assessed using the median frequency (MF) and RMS of the EMG signal during a 10-s submaximal isometric contraction. Low back pain was quantified with the McGill Pain Questionnaire before and after the practice session. RESULTS: No differences in the RMS of abdominal muscle activity were noted during the golf swing between AC and CLBP subjects. However, EO (lead) onset times were significantly delayed with respect to the start of the backswing in CLBP subjects. Low back pain in CLBP golfers increased significantly after the practice session. Abdominal muscle fatigue, as measured with MF or RMS, was not evident after the practice session for either AC or CLBP subjects. CONCLUSION: Abdominal muscle activity and muscle fatigue characteristics were quite similar between AC and CLBP subjects after repetitive golf swings. Despite this, it was clear that repetitive golf swings were aggravating some part of the musculoskeletal system in CLBP subjects, which resulted in increased pain in the low back area.
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".