Comparison of Core Endurance and Hamstring Flexibility of Adults with and without Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Reduced endurance of trunk muscles as well as poor hamstring flexibility have been found in subjects with backache. Few studies have explored the variations in core endurance and hamstring flexibility in non-athlete subjects with low back pain and normal individuals in Indian community at large. This study aims at comparing the core endurance and hamstring flexibility of the healthy individuals and subjects with low back pain. Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted in physiotherapy department and community of Ahmedabad. Males and females of 18-65 years with low back pain of any duration and cause were included in Group: A. Subjects with acute/severe back pain where core endurance tests would flare up the pain, diagnosed psychiatric illness, neurological conditions, rheumatic diseases were excluded. Group B had subjects with no back pain. Exclusion criteria was the same for Group: B. Core endurance was assessed with McGill’s core endurance test. Hamstring flexibility was assessed using Sit and reach test. Comparison between the two groups was done using Mann Whitney test and t-test respectively. Results: Total 101 subjects were approached for the study out of which 96 participated in the study. Statistically significant difference was found between the core endurance [U=563.5, p<0.001 for trunk flexor endurance; U=294.5, p<0.001 for trunk extensor endurance U=573.0, p<0.001; U=522.0, p<0.001 for trunk side bridge test (right and left respectively)] and hamstring flexibility (t= -3.063, df=94; p=0.003) in persons with and without low back pain. Conclusion: There is a significant difference in core endurance time and hamstring flexibility in subjects with and without LBP. Key words: Low back pain; Core endurance; sit and reach test; muscle tightness; flexibility.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".