MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135780186 · doi:10.32098/mltj.01.2021.15

Core Muscles Endurance in Sedentary Staffs with and without Nonspecific Chronic Low Back: A Cross-sectional Study

2021· article· en· W3135780186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. Haddadi Esfahani, Jan Dommerholt, Zahra Sadat Rezaeian

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscles Ligaments and Tendons Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIsfahan University of Medical SciencesIslamic Azad University
KeywordsCross-sectional studyCore (optical fiber)Physical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSedentary behaviorPhysical activityPsychologyComputer scienceTelecommunicationsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Musculoskeletal dysfunction is one of the most important occupational health issues. Prolonged sitting may be a risk factor for low back pain (LBP) associated with reduced muscle endurance, although many people with a sedentary lifestyle and sitting-type job report no pain and discomfort in the lumbar region. In the present study, endurance of the core muscles in individuals with sedentary jobs with nonspecific chronic LBP were compared with those without LBP. Objective. The present study compared core muscle endurance in individuals with sedentary jobs with and without nonspecific chronic low back pain. Methods. A total of 50 sedentary staffs were selected and divided into LBP and control group. Trunk muscle endurance was measured in seconds using the McGill’s trunk flexor endurance test, the Sorenson’s trunk extensor endurance test, and the right and left trunk flexor endurance test (Side-bridge test). Differences between the two groups were analyzed using multivariate general linear models in 2 ways ANOVA. Results. There were no significant between-group differences in the raw endurance of the extensor, flexor, right/ left flexor muscles (P > 0.05). However, there were significant betweengroup differences in some self-reported physical fitness subscales (P < 0.05), duration of sitting at home (P = 0.035), frequency of assuming a slump sitting position (P = 0.049), and sitting with leaning back to the backrest (P = 0.02) at work. We developed uni- and multivariate general linear models, which showed adjustments to these parameters and unmasked fundamental between-group differences in extensor muscle endurance. Conclusions. Our finding does not support the popular opinion that daily sitting-while-at-work for long durations is necessarily associated with LBP. Instead, sitting posture, lower physical fitness levels, and shorter duration of sitting activities at home may be associated with reduced extensor muscle endurance in nonspecific chronic low back pain.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscles Ligaments and Tendons JournalSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207