The Effect of a Six-week Core Stability Exercises on Balance, Strength, and Endurance in Female Students With Trunk Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Core stability is the ability of the lumbopelvic-hip complex to prevent spinal instability and return to equilibrium after a perturbation. The special physical condition in students and especially the female ones-makes them prone to Trunk Defects (TDs); thus, it makes them prone to numerous injuries, like problems in balance. The present study aimed to examine the effect of Core Stability Exercises (CSEs) on static and dynamic balance, strength, and endurance among female students with TDs. Methods: This was a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest design. The study samples were 30 female high-school students with TDs (Mean±SD age: 15.63±0.49 y, height: 1.60±0.04 m, & weight: 55.96±6.08 kg). All the subjects were placed in the same group. The Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) was used to evaluate the dynamic balance; One-Legged Stance Test (OLST) was employed to evaluate the static balance; the McGill test was applied to evaluate trunk endurance; a dynamometer was used to assess the trunk muscle strength, and tuck-jump screening test was implemented to determine students with TDs. These tests were employed at pretest and posttest phases. The research subjects followed CSEs for 6 weeks, 3 sessions per week, and approximately 45 minutes per session, supervised by the researcher. The Dependent Samples t-test at the significance level of P=0.05 was used for data analysis. Results: The present study results indicated a significant difference in strength, muscular endurance, as well as static and dynamic balance in the study subjects after the exercise program (P=0.001). Conclusion: According to the data, 6 weeks of CSEs could provide a solid foundation for the transfer of forces between the limbs. This is achieved by enhancing the strength and endurance of the core muscles of the body; accordingly, it leads to improved static and dynamic balance in female students with trunk control defect by reducing postural fluctuations. However, further extensive studies with larger sample sizes are required for providing more accurate conclusions.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".