Core endurance and its correlation with shoulder dysfunction in recreational cricket players: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The kinetic chain theory proposes a functional relationship between the core and extremities, and suggests that optimal shoulder function requires contributions from the lower extremities and core. However, there is lack of robust body of evidence to support core instability and shoulder injuries hypothesis.This study was carried out to find whether lack of core endurance correlate with shoulder dysfunction. Methodology:Twentymale recreational cricket players with mean age of 21.25±2.09 years, playing at collegiate level were recruited in the study. Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder and Elbow Score (KJOC) Questionnaire had been used to assess shoulder dysfunction. Assessment of core endurance was carried out by using McGill’s torso muscular endurance test battery. Results & Conclusion: Correlation between shoulder dysfunction and trunk flexor endurance with the p value of 0.977 (>0.05), trunk extensor endurance with the p value of 0.183 (>0.05), trunk right side flexor endurance with the p value of 0.505 (>0.05), trunk right side flexor endurance with the p value of 0.680 (>0.05).This study observes no statistical significant correlation between core endurance scores and shoulder dysfunction among recreational cricket players.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".