Trunk muscles’ characteristics in adolescent gymnasts with low back pain: a pilot study on the effects of a physiotherapy intervention including a postural reeducation program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Trunk muscles’ function and characteristics are of great importance for both static and dynamic tasks in different sports, and abnormalities of trunk flexors and extensors might be associated with low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the functional, morphological and contractile properties in trunk flexors and extensors of young gymnasts with and without LBP.Methods Young gymnasts (14/25 females, 14–18 y) were screened for the presence of chronic LBP. Abdominal and lumbar muscles were tested for function (McGill’s endurance tests), thickness (ultrasound), and contractile responses (tensiomyography). An 8-sessions physiotherapy intervention including postural reeducation was performed by a subsample of 10 subjects with LBP.Results LBP was found to be associated to higher flexors-to-extensors endurance ratio (OR 11.250, 95% CI: 1.647–76.849, p = 0.014), reduced mean lumbar multifidus thickness (OR 16.500, 95% CI: 2.246–121.228, p = 0.006), and reduced mean erector spinae radial displacement (OR 16.500, 95% CI: 2.246–121.228, p = 0.006). The physiotherapy intervention was found to reduce LBP symptoms and it was associated with a significant improvement in the flexors-to-extensors ratio (p < 0.001).Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence of functional, morphological, and contractile trunk muscles’ alterations associated with chronic LBP in young gymnasts, and presents the effects of a postural reeducation program on symptoms and muscles’ functional properties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".