[no title]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The role of trunk muscle training (TMT) for physical ftness (e.g., muscle power) and sport-specifc performance measures (e.g., swimming time) in athletic populations has been extensively examined over the last decades. However, a\nrecent systematic review and meta-analysis on the efects of TMT on measures of physical ftness and sport-specifc performance in young and adult athletes is lacking.\nObjective To aggregate the efects of TMT on measures of physical ftness and sport-specifc performance in young and adult athletes and identify potential subject-related moderator variables (e.g., age, sex, expertise level) and training-related programming parameters (e.g., frequency, study length, session duration, and number of training sessions) for TMT efects.\nData Sources A systematic literature search was conducted with PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus, with no date restrictions, up to June 2021.\nStudy Eligibility Criteria Only controlled trials with baseline and follow-up measures were included if they examined the efects of TMT on at least one measure of physical ftness (e.g., maximal muscle strength, change-of-direction speed (CODS)/\nagility, linear sprint speed) and sport-specifc performance (e.g., throwing velocity, swimming time) in young or adult competitive athletes at a regional, national, or international level. The expertise level was classifed as either elite (competing at\nnational and/or international level) or regional (i.e., recreational and sub-elite).\nStudy Appraisal and Synthesis Methods The methodological quality of TMT studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random-efects model was used to calculate weighted standardized mean diferences (SMDs) between intervention and active control groups. Additionally, univariate sub-group analyses were independently computed for subject-related moderator variables and training-related programming parameters.\nResults Overall, 31 studies with 693 participants aged 11–37 years were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included studies was 5 on the PEDro scale. In terms of physical ftness, there were signifcant, small-to-large efects of TMT on maximal muscle strength (SMD =0.39), local muscular endurance (SMD =1.29), lower limb muscle power (SMD=0.30), linear sprint speed (SMD =0.66), and CODS/agility (SMD =0.70). Furthermore, a signifcant and moderate TMT efect was found for sport-specifc performance (SMD=0.64). Univariate sub-group analyses for subject-related moderator variables revealed signifcant efects of age on CODS/agility (p=0.04), with signifcantly large efects for children (SMD=1.53, p=0.002). Further, there was a signifcant efect of number of training sessions on muscle power and linear sprint speed (p≤0.03), with signifcant, small-to-large efects of TMT for>18 sessions compared to≤18 sessions (0.45≤SMD≤0.84, p≤0.003). Additionally, session duration signifcantly modulated TMT efects on linear sprint speed, CODS/agility, and sport-specifc performance (p≤0.05). TMT with session durations≤30 min resulted in signifcant, large efects on linear sprint speed and CODS/agility (1.66≤SMD≤2.42, p≤0.002), whereas session durations>30 min resulted in signifcant, large efects on sport-specifc performance (SMD=1.22, p=0.008).\nConclusions Our fndings indicate that TMT is an efective means to improve selected measures of physical ftness and sportspecifc performance in young and adult athletes. Independent sub-group analyses suggest that TMT has the potential to improve CODS/agility, but only in children. Additionally, more (>18) and/or shorter duration (≤30 min) TMT sessions appear to be more efective for improving lower limb muscle power, linear sprint speed, and CODS/agility in young or adult competitive athletes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".