The immediate effect of two lumbar stabilization methods on postural control parameters and their reliability during two balance tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lumbosacral orthosis (LSO) and/or the isolated contraction of the transversus abdominis muscle by the abdominal drawing-in maneuver (ADIM) can increase lumbar stiffness, consequently influencing postural control. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of LSO and ADIM on postural control during two balance tasks and determine their reliability.Methods: Twenty participants (50% men) randomly performed three experimental conditions: 1) without lumbar stabilization, 2) with LSO), and 3) with ADIM. Each experimental condition was tested in two postural tasks: semi-tandem and one-legged stance on a force platform for 30 seconds, while the Center of pressure postural (COP) parameters were computed.Results: The two methods of lumbar stabilization were comparable and did not significantly reduce the COP values across time, even though a few individuals presented a change in their COP data above the levels of measurement errors. The reliability of these measurements was generally acceptable and sometimes excellent (≥ 0.90 and ≤10% error measurement).Conclusions: Both LSO and isolated contraction of the transversus abdominis muscle by ADIM do not change postural control in one-legged stance and in semi-tandem tasks. These results have implications for use or not these methods for postural control on a rehabilitation perspective.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".