Seated Lumbar extensor strength in adults: a study of repeatability and reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: In this study, we examined the use of a static dynamometer chair to measure lumbar spine extensors strength in a sample of 79 healthy adults.Methods: In this study we examined 79 healthy subjects (33 males and 46 females), 25-63 years of age. Subjects were placed in a seated position on the novel chair, secured tightly with a lap belt. In each session, the subjects were asked to extend their back against the force transducer at maximum capacity, maintaining the extension for 5 seconds. The maximal force delivered over that period was recorded. Subjects had a practice trial followed by 3 forceful extensions with pausing intervals of 30 seconds. The average force of all 3 trials were recorded. A follow up session was carried out within 14 days later.Results: Initial session was 69.474 LBS (67.047 and 71.901). Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for single measure was 0.853 (0.765 and 0.908 with 95% CI) and for average measures, 0.921(0.867 to 0.952 with CI 95%).Follow up session mean noted was 71.661 LBS (71.615 and 71.706). Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for single measure was 0.798 (is 0.683 and 0.874 with 95% CI) and for average measures, 0.888 (0.812 and 0.933 with CI 95%).Relationship (average measure) between initial session and follow up session set of measurements (r=0.80; p<0.001; R2=0.62).Conclusion:The use of the static dynamometer chair is reliable. It is a non-invasive, cost-effective test that facilitates the assessment of lumbar spine extensors strength in adult patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".