MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193802303 · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2021/48224.15043

Effectiveness of Modified Plank vs Conventional Plank on Core Muscle Endurance and Stability in Recreational Athletes: A Quasi-Experimental study

2021· article· en· W3193802303 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSports and Physical Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCore stabilityPlankCore (optical fiber)Physical therapyAthletesSignificant differenceBalance testTest (biology)MedicineExcursionDynamic balancePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)Structural engineeringEngineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The core muscle plays a major role in providing stability. Several studies have been conducted to identify the activation of core muscle in variety of planking methods but the effects of modified planking in core strengthening program is vaguely studied. Aim: This study aimed to compare the modified plank with conventional plank and to identify which mode of planking was more superior in training for endurance and dynamic stability of core muscle. Materials and Methods: A quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study design was conducted for a total duration of 6 weeks and 32 subjects were assigned into two groups: Experimental group (Body Saw Plank) and Control group (conventional plank). A pre-test and post-test of core endurance and dynamic stability were measured by using McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test and Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT). A paired sample t-test was used to identify a significant difference between pre-test result and post-test result within the same group. Furthermore, an independent t-test was used to determine the significant difference between the post-test on the subject’s core endurance and dynamic stability between the control group and experimental group. Results: A total of 32 subjects were selected, with a mean age of 20.63±1.6, of which 14 were males and 18 were females, with mean height, mean weight and mean BMI were 164.70±7.74, 57.26±8.57 and 21.02±2.36 respectively. After 6 weeks of intervention, there was a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test of McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test. However, comparison of post-test between groups of the McGill Torso Muscular Endurance Test shows no significant difference. On the other hand, both groups also show significant differences between the pre-test and post-test on SEBT. However, comparison between the post-test of the control group and experimental group has no significant differences in normalised reach distance and composite score. Conclusion: The findings proved that both body saw plank and conventional plank effectively enhances core muscle endurance and also dynamic stability equally.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.416
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.195 · 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