Pelvic floor and abdominal muscle responses during hypopressive exercises in women with pelvic floor dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To measure the neuromuscular activation of the pelvic floor and abdominal muscles concurrently with vaginal closure forces induced during a hypopressive exercise (HE) and to identify the contribution of the HEs sequences (posture and maneuver) in the muscle's activation. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was employed. Sixty-six women who had participated in a physical therapy program focused on HEs were recruited. Pelvic floor muscle (PFM) activation was measured using surface electromyography (sEMG) in supine and in the orthostatic position, and vaginal closure force was measured through vaginal dynamometry in supine. Activation of the abdominal, gluteal, and hip adductor muscles was measured using sEMG. Maximum effort voluntary contractions (MVCs) of the PFMs and reference contractions of the abdominal and hip muscles were acquired for normalization purposes. A HE was then performed in a supine position with one leg raised, then in an orthostatic position. RESULTS: During the supine HE, the peak PFM sEMG amplitude was 74.4% to 86.5% (49.6%-109.6%) of MVC, the peak vaginal closure force was between 51.2% and 55.7% (95.5%-382.9%) of MVC, and the muscles of the lateral abdominal wall were activated between 25.4% and 35.3% of the reference contraction. During the orthostatic HE, PFM activation was 61.4% (40.1%-105.6%) of MVC, and the lateral abdominal wall muscles contracted at 22.8% of the reference activation level. CONCLUSIONS: The PFMs, abdominal, gluteal, and adductor muscles are activated during the performance of a HE. The activation level of the PFMs and abdominal muscles is likely insufficient to result in strength gains; however, they could have an endurance effect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".