Dynamic Balance is Similar Between Lower Extremities in Elite Fencers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have quantified dynamic balance in fencers despite previous suggestions that balance training may be beneficial for these athletes. Generally, asymmetry in dynamic balance performance between the left and right legs can be an indicator of lower extremity injury risk and used to monitor rehabilitation progress. Fencing is recognized as an asymmetric sport, therefore, differences in dynamic balance may exist among uninjured athletes. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The primary objective of this investigation was to evaluate whether asymmetry of dynamic balance is present in uninjured national-level fencers. It was hypothesized that elite uninjured fencers would demonstrate superior dynamic balance on the lead-leg of their fencing stance. A secondary objective was to compare dynamic balance performance of elite fencers to previously published data from high-level athletes participating in other sports. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive Laboratory Study. METHODS: Fourteen uninjured elite competitive fencers were recruited. Subjects self-reported the lead leg of their fencing stance. Each participant performed the Y-Balance test (YBT), which represented a measurement of dynamic balance control, on both legs. Reach distances were recorded directly from a commercially available YBT apparatus. Four reach distances were recorded: anterior, posteromedial, posterolateral, and a composite measure was calculated. Distances were leg length-normalized and expressed as a percentage. Sample averages and standard deviations were derived for the four YBT measurements. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in reaching distance between the lead and trail legs in any of the four YBT measures (p ≥ 0.65). Fencers appeared to demonstrate larger normalized reach distances in the posterolateral and posteromedial directions than other athletes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that dynamic balance is not significantly different between the lead and trail legs in elite fencers, despite the asymmetrical nature of their sport. The apparent symmetry of dynamic balance control in uninjured fencers means that the YBT could be used in this population for monitoring progress during training and rehabilitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".