MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323293200 · doi:10.1080/10803548.2016.1153223

A dental stool with chest support reduces lower back muscle activation

2016· article· en· W2323293200 on OpenAlexaff
Viet Cuong Tran, Reid Turner, Andrew MacFadden, Stephen M. Cornish, Dale Esliger, K. Komiyama, Philip D. Chilibeck

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational health in dentistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSittingMedicineSternumElectromyographyMuscle fatiguePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activation of back musculature during work tasks leads to fatigue and potential injury. This is especially prevalent in dentists who perform much of their work from a seated position. We examined the use of an ergonomic dental stool with mid-sternum chest support for reducing lower back muscle activation. Electromyography of lower back extensors was assessed from 30 dental students for 20 s during three conditions in random order: (a) sitting upright at 90° of hip flexion on a standard stool, (b) leaning forward at 80° of hip flexion on a standard stool, and (c) leaning forward at 80° of hip flexion while sitting on an ergonomic stool. Muscular activity of the back extensors was reduced when using the ergonomic stool compared to the standard stool, by 33-50% (p < 0.01). This suggests a potential musculoskeletal benefit with use of a dental stool with mid-sternum chest support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Safety and ErgonomicsSame topicOccupational health in dentistryFrench-language works237,207