Performance analysis of women over 55 years on abdominal tests: impact of anthropometry and flexibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of anthropometric variables and flexibility on the performance of women aged 55+ years on abdominal test protocols. The sample was composed by 20 physically active volunteers, aged 55 years (median 61), who were participants in gymnastic activities program. Each volunteer performed two abdominal tests: partial trunk flexion with a 7.6 cm sliding of the hands (P1) and partial flexion of the trunk with the hands on the thighs (P2), both executed with the feet resting on the ground. For analysis, the number of correct executions (final position) was considered in each test, as recommended by the authors. Measurements of body mass, flexibility, height, waist and hip perimeters, subjective perception of exertion, and calculations of body mass index and waist-hip ratio were performed. The perception of abdominal effort, and discomfort or pain in the cervical and lumbar region were also evaluated. The results showed that there were no statistically significant associations between the analyzed indicators (Age: P1: rs = -0.024, p = 0.916; P2: rs = -0.194, p = 0.407; BMI: P1: rs =-0.064, p = 0.792; P2: rs = -0.235, p= 0.327; Waist Circumference: P1: rs = -0.143, p = 0.563; P2: rs = 0.027, p = 0.908; Flexibility: r s= -0.327, p = 0.169; P2: rs = 0.0009, p = 0.991; Hip waist ratio: P1: rs = -0.209, p = 0.371; P2: rs = 0.217, p = 0.353) and the performance on the tests. In addition, 35% of the participants made valid attempts on P1 while 45% produced at least one valid attempt on P2. It was concluded that both abdominal tests were adequate for the studied sample and they can be applied to adult and elderly women to assess their abdominal musculature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".