The Effects of Respiratory Muscle Functions on Trunk Muscle Endurance in Healthy Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Respiratory muscles play a dual role in breathing and trunk stability during activities. The relationship between respiratory muscle functions and trunk stability has not yet been clarified. The aim of the study was to examine the effects of respiratory muscle functions on trunk muscle endurance in healthy young adults. Methods: McGill's trunk muscle endurance tests, which consist of trunk flexion endurance test (FE), Sorensen test (ST) and Side Bridge test (SB), were used to evaluate the participants' trunk muscle endurance. Respiratory muscle strength was evaluated by measuring intraoral maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures using an intraoral pressure meter device. The respiratory muscle endurance test was performed with the incremental threshold load protocol using a threshold IMT device. Results: A total of 51 healthy young adults, with a mean age of 21.8 ± 3.2 years, were evaluated. The results of the linear regression models were significantly explained 46% of the variance in the SB and 38% in the FE, (for SB Adj R2=0.46, F=21.40, p< 0.001 and for FE Adj R2=0.38, F=15.65, p< 0.001). Respiratory muscle endurance contributed 30% to the endurance of the trunk flexor muscles, while respiratory muscle strength contributed only 8%. Similarly, respiratory muscle endurance contributed 38% to the endurance of the trunk lateral flexor muscles, while respiratory muscle strength contributed only 8%. Conclusion: Although respiratory muscle strength and respiratory muscle endurance were independent contributors to trunk muscle endurance, respiratory muscle endurance more affected trunk muscle endurance than respiratory muscle strength in healthy young adults.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".