Non-invasive assessment of sacroiliac joint and lumbar spine positioning in different unilateral sitting postures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) motion has been documented using invasive and noninvasive kinematic techniques. No study has explored SIJ angular positions in functional postures using noninvasive techniques. The purpose of this study was to quantify SIJ positioning among different seated postures in a healthy population. METHODS: Twelve female and 11 male healthy young participants participated. Left and right anterior and posterior superior iliac spines were manually digitized during standing, neutral sitting and four different seated postures. Rigid bodies recorded the kinematics of the lumbar spine. Angles calculated included transverse sacroiliac angle, innominate sagittal angle, sacral tilt, lumbar flexion-extension, lumbar lateral bend and lumbar axial twist. FINDINGS: The observed range of angular positions was approximately 3 to 4 degrees across the SIJ-related angles. The main effect of seated posture was observed for all angles measured. The main effect of sex was observed for all angles except lumbar lateral bending. Females consistently experienced more posterior sacral tilt than males. Interaction effects between sex and posture were only observed at the right-transverse sacroiliac angle and sacral tilt. Previous sitting posture affected the subsequent neutral sitting posture for the right-transverse sacroiliac angle and lumbar spine angle. INTERPRETATION: SIJ angular position differences among the seated postures were similar in magnitude to motions previously reported in participants undergoing prone passive hip abduction and external rotation. Sex differences, including greater sacral posterior tilt observed in females, likely reflect underlying morphological and physiological differences. Future studies should explore SIJ positioning during functional tasks in pathological populations to help elucidate the underlying causes of SIJ pain and inform treatment strategies.
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) | 0.002 | 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".