Relationships between the Functional Movement Screen Score and Y-Balance Test Reach Distances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is used to evaluate key movement patterns, functional symmetry, and identify individuals that are at elevated risk of injury. The purpose of this study was to assess whether dynamic postural control is a significant component of the composite FMS score by comparing it with Y-Balance Test (YBT) reach distances. Methods: Seventy-eight participants (including 40 males) performed the standardized FMS protocol followed by the YBT. The YBT reach distances were normalized to leg length and averaged between sides and trials. The individual reach directions were evaluated, and were also summed to form an aggregate YBT distance (TotalY). Results: We observed weak correlations between the composite FMS score and normalized posterolateral reach, normalized posteromedial reach, and the TotalY (r=0.36, 0.37, and 0.36, respectively; all p< 0.05). There was no correlation between the composite FMS score and normalized anterior reach (r=0.22; p=0.053). Together these findings demonstrate partial correspondence between the two tests. Conclusion: This indicates that dynamic postural control is a small component of the aggregate FMS score.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".