Anatomical and functional relationships between external abdominal oblique muscle and posterior layer of thoracolumbar fascia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abdominal muscles are important for the stability of the lumbar region through the thoracolumbar fascia (TLF). However, there is not full agreement regarding the posterior transversal continuity of the external abdominal oblique muscle (EO) with the TLF. To clarify this point, 10 cadavers and computed tomography (CT) images from 27 subjects were used to evaluate the transversal continuity of the TLF with the abdominal muscles. The width of the fascial continuity of the EO with the posterior layer of TLF along the posterior border of the EO was also measured (40.70 ±3.92 mm). The epimysial fascia of the EO was in direct continuity with the posterior layer of TLF in eight cadavers and 23 CT images, whereas in two cadavers and four CT images, the epimysial fascia of the EO first fused with the fascia covering the latissimus dorsi, and then, both fasciae were in continuity with the posterior layer of TLF. Therefore, the transversal fascial continuity of the EO could explain the transmission of tension from the EO to the posterior layer of TLF and its importance in maintaining the stability of the lumbar spine through a hydraulic effect. Regarding fascial continuity in the trunk, and taking the EO into consideration, the TLF is formed by the fascia of all the abdominal muscles as the rectus sheath. In this manner, myofascial continuity between the TLF and the abdominal muscles is achieved through the aponeurosis and fascia, which ensures synchronization between the erector spinae and the rectus abdominis. Clin. Anat. 31:1092-1098, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".