Prevalence and factors associated with low lumbar strength in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Verificar a prevalência e fatores associados a baixos níveis de força lombar em adolescentes de 14 a 19 anos de idade.Método: Trata-se de um estudo transversal, com 909 adolescentes de 14 a 19 anos, estudantes de escolas públicas da cidade de São José, Santa Catarina – Brasil. Analisou-se a força lombar por meio do teste de extensão lombar proposto pela Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness and Lifestyle Approach (CPAFLA) que propõe pontos de corte distintos para os sexos. As variáveis independentes analisadas foram: sexo, idade, nível econômico, tempo de tela, atividade física, aptidão aeróbia e Indíce de Massa corporal. Para a análise dos dados utilizou-se a regressão logística binária com nível de significância de 5%.Resultados: A prevalência de baixos níveis de força lombar foi de 45,2%, sendo 36,2% para os meninos e 53,1% para as meninas. Os subgrupos populacionais com maiores chances de baixos níveis de força lombar foram o sexo feminino (OR: 1,99; IC95%: 1,52-2,60) e adolescentes com excesso de peso (OR: 1,48; IC95%: 1,12-1,96). Conclusão: Quase metade dos estudantes apresentaram baixos níveis de força lombar. As meninas e os adolescentes com excesso de peso estiveram mais propícios a ter baixos níveis de força lombar.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".