MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109970273 · doi:10.1123/jsr.2020-0095

Low-Back Pain and Knee Position–Related Differences on Postural Control Measures During a One-Legged Stance in Athletes

2020· article· en· W3109970273 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Henrique Nowotny, Mariane Guizeline Calderon, Bruno Mazziotti Oliveira Alves, Márcio Rogério de Oliveira, Rodrigo A. de Carvalho Andraus, Andreo Fernando Aguiar, César Ferreira Amorim, Guillaume Léonard, Rubens Alexandre da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Rehabilitation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCenter of pressure (fluid mechanics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAthletesPhysical therapyContext (archaeology)Knee flexionBalance (ability)Force platformCentre of pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) may be associated with changes in postural balance in athletes as poor postural control during sports practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the postural control of athletes with and without CLBP during 2 one-legged stance tasks and identify the center of pressure (COP) cutoff values to determine the main differences. Designed: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Laboratory of functional evaluation and human motor performance. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 56 male athletes, 28 with and 28 without CLBP (mean age = 26 y). INTERVENTION: The one-legged stance with knee extension and with the knee at 30° flexion tasks were measured and analyzed on a force platform. The participants completed three 30-second trials (30 s of rest between each trial). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The COP parameters: the area of COP, mean COP sway velocity in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions, and total COP displacement were computed, and a receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was applied to determine the group differences. RESULTS: Athletes with CLBP had poorer postural control (P < .01) in both tasks. The 30° knee flexion reported more postural instability than the knee extension for all COP parameters (a large effect size d = 0.80).The knee extension cutoffs identified were >7.1 cm2 for the COP area, >2.6 cm/s for the COP sway velocity in the anterior-posterior direction, and >3.2 cm/s for the mediolateral direction. Whereas, the 30° knee flexion cutoffs were >10.9 cm2 for the COP area, >2.9 cm/s for the COP sway velocity in the anterior-posterior direction, and >4.1 cm/s for the mediolateral direction. Both measures showed enough sensitivity and specificity (ie, area under the curve = 0.88 in and 0.80, respectively) to discriminate both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The athletes with CLBP had poorer postural control than the healthy athletes and obtained specific cutoff scores from the COP values.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport RehabilitationSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207