Quadriceps and gluteus medius activity during stable and unstable loading exercises in athletes. A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the muscle activation of the vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, and gluteus medius during different strength and stability exercises with a water tank compared with a sandbag. A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Functional Anatomy Laboratory, and the sample consisted of 28 athletes. The main outcome measures were surface electromyography (dependent variable), water tank and sandbag, and exercise type (independent variables): Isometric Single Leg Stance (ISLS), One Leg Deadlift (OLDL), Front Rack Forward Lunge (FRFL), and Lateral Lunge (LL). Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant Group × Time interaction in gluteus medius root mean square (RMS) (F = 14.198, p < 0.001, ŋ2 = 0.35), vastus lateralis RMS (F = 24.374, p < 0.001, ŋ2 = 0.47), and vastus medialis RMS (F = 27.261, p < 0.001, ŋ2 = 0.50). In the between-group analysis, statistically significant differences were observed in gluteus medius RMS in the ISLS: 28.5 ± 15.8 water tank and 20.8 ± 12.6 sandbag (p < 0.001, ŋ2 = 0.08) and OLDL: 29.7 ± 13.3 water tank and 26.5 ± 13.1 sandbag (p < 0.001, ŋ2 = 0.01). In vastus lateralis in ISLS: 30.4 ± 37.6 water tank and 19.0 ± 26.7 sandbag (p < 0.001, ŋ2 = 0.03). In vastus medialis in ISLS: 14.2 ± 13.0 water tank and 7.0 ± 5.6 sandbag (p < 0.001, ŋ2 = 0.12), OLDL: 21.5 ± 16.9 water tank and 15.5 ± 10.7 sandbag (p = 0.002, ŋ2 = 0.04), and LL: 51.8 ± 29.6 water tank and 54.3 ± 29.3 sandbag (p = 0.017, ŋ2 = 0.00). These results confirm significantly greater activation of the gluteus medius and vastus medialis in the ISLS and OLDL exercises, and of the vastus lateralis in the water tank ISLS exercise. However, the vastus medialis shows greater activation in the LL exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".