Trunk rotation strength and endurance in healthy normals and elite male golfers with and without low back pain.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relative importance and asymmetric loading of the trunk muscles in golf (slow rotation backswing followed by high velocity downswing) may cause side-to-side imbalances in axial rotation strength and endurance characteristics amongst elite players who frequently play and practice. Such imbalances may further be compounded by the presence of low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To establish and compare trunk rotation strength and endurance of healthy individuals who do not play golf and those that are highly skilled at the sport. Additionally, a smaller group of elite golfers with non-debilitating low back pain (LBP) were also evaluated and compared to their healthy counterparts. METHODS: Forty healthy non-golfing control subjects, 32 healthy elite golfers, and 7 golfers with LBP participated in this study. Bilateral trunk rotation strength and endurance was assessed using the Biodex System III Isokinetic Dynamometer with torso rotation attachment. Strength and endurance data was analyzed using 2-way ANOVA. RESULTS: No significant differences in peak torque were found within or between groups. However, golfers with LBP demonstrated significantly less endurance in the non-dominant direction (the follow-through of the golf swing) than either healthy group. No significant difference in endurance was found between the non-golfing controls and the healthy elite golfers. CONCLUSIONS: Trunk rotation endurance in golfers with LBP might be more important than strength alone in the prevention and treatment of LBP. The results from this study provide useful information on possible risk factors associated with low back pain in golfers (decreased endurance) and allow for sport-specific clinical intervention strategies to be developed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it