FMS assessment and core stability in a group of amateur climbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of the study was to assess the functional status of people who regularly climb for recreational purposes, using the FMS (Functional Movement Screen) and core stability tests (McGill's torso muscular endurance tests). This paper also attempts to determine the relation between the assessment of functional efficiency and the results obtained in core stability tests. Material and methods: The study group were consisted of 30 amateur climbers (aged 26 ±3), who were compared to a control group of 30 people who don’t climb but recreationally practice volleyball (aged 22 ±3). All participants performed each of the seven FMS trials and the three McGill's tests. Results: Amateur climbers, in comparison to non-climbers, were achieved higher scores in each of the core stability trials (p<0,05). Climbers also scored significantly higher results in all FMS trials as well as in the final average (19,0 3 ±1,54 vs. 16,60 ±3,60; p<0,01). In addition, there were found positive correlations between FMS and core stability trials in the group of climbers (Deep Squad vs. Side bridge test; In-Line Lunge vs. Side bridge test; Rotational Stability vs. all trials of the core stability test). Conclusions: People recreational practicing climbing are characterized by a high level of functional efficiency and above-average levels of deep trunk muscles endurance, responsible for the proper functioning of the central stabilization. Relationship between the overall results of the FMS and the core stability tests in the climbers' group shows that proper stability training, which is a part of the climbers training, may result in higher athletes’ performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".