Influence of Load on Three-Dimensional Segmental Trunk Kinematics in One-Handed Lifting: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stability of the trunk is relevant in determining trunk response to different loading in everyday tasks initiated by the limbs. Descriptions of the trunk's mechanical movement patterns in response to different loads while lifting objects are still under debate. Hence, the aim of this study was to analyze the influence of weight on 3-dimensional segmental motion of the trunk during 1-handed lifting. Ten asymptomatic subjects were included (29 ± 3 y; 1.79 ± 0.09 m; 75 ± 14 kg). Subjects lifted 3× a light and heavy load from the ground up onto a table. Three-dimensional segmental trunk motion was measured (12 markers; 3 segments: upper thoracic area [UTA], lower thoracic area [LTA], lumbar area [LA]). Outcomes were total motion amplitudes (ROM;[°]) for anterior flexion, lateral flexion, and rotation of each segment. The highest ROM was observed in the LTA segment (anterior flexion), and the smallest ROM in the UTA segment (lateral flexion). ROM differed for all planes between the 3 segments for both tasks (P < .001). There were no differences in ROM between light and heavy loads (P > .05). No interaction effects (load × segment) were observed, as ROM did not reveal differences between loading tasks. Regardless of weight, the 3 segments did reflect differences, supporting the relevance of multisegmental analysis.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".