Asymmetrical and smaller size of trunk muscles in combat sports athletes with lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration
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: Lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (LDD) frequently occurs in athletes. Associations between LDD and trunk muscles still remain unclear. PURPOSE: This study examined whether there is an association between the prevalence of LDD and the symmetry and size of the cross-sectional areas (CSAs) of the trunk muscles in combat sports athletes. METHODS: Participants in this study were 151 collegiate male combat sports athletes. A total of 755 lumbar intervertebral discs from L1-2 to L5-S1 in 151 athletes were assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a comprehensive grading system of LDD (grades I-V). All 151 athletes were divided into 2 groups: LDD and non-LDD. CSAs of trunk muscles at the L3-4 disc level were measured using MRI. RESULTS: Sixty-nine athletes had LDD at 1 or more disc levels (45.7 %). The LDD grade for the lower 2 disc levels was significantly higher than that for the other disc levels (p < 0.001). The CSAs of the left and right sides in trunk muscles were significantly asymmetrical, independent of the LDD which was prevalent in the disc levels (obliques: p = 0.040; quadratus lumborum: p < 0.001). The relative CSAs of trunk muscles to their body weight in the LDD group were significantly smaller than those in the non-LDD group (rectus abdominis: p = 0.011; obliques: p = 0.024; quadratus lumborum: p = 0.006; lumbar erector spinae plus multifidus: p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the prevalence of LDD is associated with asymmetrical and relatively smaller CSAs of trunk muscles in combat sports athletes.
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