The effect of different jaw positions on upper extremity performance, core endurance, and postural stability: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The jaw sensorimotor system has functional relationships with other parts of the body through neuroanatomical and biomechanical interactions. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of different jaw positions on upper extremity performance, core endurance, and postural stability. This cross-sectional study included 49 healthy young adults aged 18-28 years. Upper extremity performance was evaluated using the push-up test, core endurance was evaluated using the McGill’s Trunk Flexion and Extension Test and postural stability was evaluated using the Balance Error Scoring System. All assessments were made with resting jaw and clenching jaw positions. There was no significant difference in the Push-up test and Balance Error Scoring System scores in different jaw positions (p>0.05). The Mcgill trunk flexion test and extension test performance were found to be better in the clenched jaw position (p=0.017, p=0.035, respectively). The results of this study showed that jaw clenching increases core endurance time. This result should be taken into account when planning an evaluation and rehabilitation program for the core area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".