Peer Review #2 of "Characteristics and usefulness of trunk muscle endurance tests on the Roman chair in healthy adults (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Adequate trunk muscle endurance is considered to be an important indicator of good low back stability; therefore, its assessment is needed when determining an individual's risk for back pain.Optimal tests to assess each trunk muscle group separately are difficult to find.The objective of this study was to verify if two groups of trunk muscle endurance tests (standard and alternative) show comparable results in terms of muscle endurance ratios, holding times and rated perceived effort to perform each test. Methods. The study was designed as a quasi-experimental repeated-measures design.There was a single group of participants who took part in two different trunk muscle endurance testing.Sixty-eight healthy adult volunteers, aged 20-45 years (31.9±7.2 years), without recent musculoskeletal injury or disorder participated in the study.All participants finished the study.Trunk muscle endurance tests as tested on the Roman chair (B tests) were compared with standard tests as suggested by McGill (A tests).Each group of tests consisted of an endurance test for trunk extensors, trunk flexors, and lateral trunk muscles for left and right side.The order of tests' performance s was randomly assigned to each participant, whereby a participant did perform A and B tests in the same order.In each test of A and B the holding time was recorded and a perceived effort in each test performance was also assessed by participants.Post testing performance of four ratios of trunk muscles endurance comparison were calculated for each group of tests to determine if there is a good or poor ratio between muscles.Results of each participant were compared for trunk muscle endurance ratio calculations, holding times and rated perceived effort for A and B tests.Results.Results showed comparable trunk muscle endurance ratios in the three ratios observed, except for the flexors:extensors ratio (A FL:EX : 1.2 (IQR: 0.7-1.6) vs. B FL:EX : 0.6 (IQR: 0.3-0.8);p < 0.001).As compared to A tests, holding times were significantly longer in B tests for the extensors (A EX : 125.5 s (IQR: 104.8-182.8s) vs. B EX : 284.0 s (IQR: 213.0-342.3s); p < 0.001) and lateral trunk muscles (A L-LM : 61.0 s
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 | 0.007 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.084 |
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".