Impact of lumbar delayed-onset muscle soreness on postural stability in standing postures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Similar impact on proprioception has been observed in participants with lumbar delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and chronic low back pain (LBP), raising questions about the relevance of lumbar DOMS as a suitable pain model for LBP when assessing back pain-related postural stability changes. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does lumbar DOMS impact postural stability? METHODS: Twenty healthy adults participated in this experimental study and underwent a posturographic examination before and 24 to 36 h after a protocol designed to induce lumbar DOMS. Posturographic examination was assessed during quiet standing on both feet with eyes opened (EO), with eyes closed (EC), and on one-leg (OL) standing with eyes opened. Postural stability was assessed through center of pressure (COP) parameters (COP area, velocity, root mean square, mean power frequency) which were compared using repeated measure ANOVA. Moreover, pain, soreness and pressure pain threshold (PPT) on specific muscles were assessed. RESULTS: There was a significant main effect of the postural condition on all COP variables investigated. More specifically, each COP variable reached a significantly higher value in the OL stance condition than in both EO and EC bipedal conditions (all with p < 0.001). In addition, the COP velocity and the mean power frequency along the anteroposterior direction both reached a significantly higher value in EC than in EO (p < 0.001). In contrast, there was no significant main effect of the DOMS nor significant DOMS X postural condition interaction on any of the COP variables. There was a significant decrease in the PPT value for both the left and right erector spinae muscles, as well as the left biceps femoris. SIGNIFICANCE: Lumbar DOMS had no impact on postural stability, which contrasts findings in participants with clinical LBP. Although DOMS induces similar trunk sensorimotor adaptations to clinical LBP, it does not appear to trigger similar postural stability adaptations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".