Potential exoskeleton uses for reducing low back muscular activity during farm tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the sustainability of the agricultural workforce has been threatened by the high prevalence of back pain, developing effective interventions to reduce its burden within farming will contribute to the long-term health and productivity of workers. Passive back-support exoskeletons are being explored as an intervention to reduce the physical demands on the back muscles, and consequently mitigate the risk of back pain, in many industrial sectors. METHODS: This study investigated whether exoskeleton use could reduce farmers' low back muscle load. Electromyography was used to evaluate exoskeleton use in field and laboratory settings. A total of 14 farmers (13 males and 1 female) with a mean age of 49 (SD = 12) years and 6 female nonfarmers (mean age 28, SD = 5 years) performed a standardized set of tasks that included symmetric and asymmetric lifting and sustained trunk flexion. Following the standardized tasks, 14 farmers also performed regular, real-world, farm tasks with and without use of the exoskeleton at their farms. RESULTS: Exoskeleton use decreased back muscular load during farming activities up to 65%, 56%, and 48% in static, median, and peak muscle activity, respectively. This indicates potential benefits of exoskeleton use to help farmers work under less muscular load. Paradoxically, exoskeleton use during standardized tasks increased muscle activity for some participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential effects of using passive exoskeletons in agriculture through observational and experimental research, and is among the first that explores the potential for using exoskeletons during actual work tasks in farm settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".