THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORE ENDURANCE AND BACK DYSFUNCTION IN COLLEGIATE MALE ATHLETES WITH AND WITHOUT NONSPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity and sports can be associated with low back pain. However, little is known about the relationship between core stability and nonspecific low back pain (LBP) among athletes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between core endurance and back dysfunction in collegiate male athletes with and without nonspecific LBP. METHODS: Fifty-five male collegiate athletes from a variety of sports were recruited for this study. Their mean age was 21.50 ± (2.54) years, mean weight was 70.96 ± (5.33) kg., and mean height was 174.38 ± (4.37) cm. Thirty athletes with non-specific LBP and twenty five healthy athletes were assessed using McGill's anterior, posterior, and left and right plank core endurance tests (seconds) and for dysfunction using the Micheli functional scale (MFS). Pearson's product moment correlations examined the relationships between core endurance and MFS. RESULTS: There were significant differences regarding the measured core endurance tests between the healthy athletes group and the nonspecific LBP group (p < 0.05). Additionally, good negative (r = -0.794) and moderate negative (r = -0.541) correlations were found between MFS and trunk extensor and flexor endurance tests, respectively in the group with nonspecific LBP. CONCLUSION: The results of this study imply that poor core endurance is likely associated with nonspecific LBP in collegiate athletes. Injury risk reduction and back management programs for the athletic population should include strategies that emphasize endurance of the core muscles especially the trunk extensors and flexors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".