Periscapular activity in subjects with scapular dyskinesis during push-ups on stable and unstable support surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The scapular dyskinesis has been described as a sign of scapular instability due to weakness or imbalance of scapular muscles. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the EMG activity of the periscapular and abdominal muscles of asymptomatic subjects without and with scapular dyskinesis type II during a push-up exercise performed on different surface stability conditions. METHODS: Twenty-seven physically active men were allocated into two groups: the Control group (n= 14); and the Dyskinesis group (n= 13). All participants performed three variations of the push-up exercise: Stable, Push-up with hand instability, and Push-up with hand and feet instability. The EMG activity of serratus anterior, upper (UT), middle (MT) and lower (LT) trapezius, external oblique (EO) and rectus abdominis (RA) was recorded during each task. RESULTS: The control group showed an increase in MT activity (mean difference -3.46 to 8.66) under both instability conditions compared to stable push-ups (p< 0.001). The comparison between groups showed that the control group had higher MT activity (mean difference -10.07 to 13.82) compared to the dyskinesis group under unstable conditions (p< 0.012). CONCLUSION: The insertion of unstable surfaces increased MT activity in the control group only. The insertion of the unstable surface, either the hands or the footrest, did not provide significant effects for the other muscles.
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".