Comparison of lumbar force between pubertal and post-pubertal adolescents: interference of physical growth, body fat and lifestyle.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim: To compare performance in the lumbar force test in pubertal and post-pubertal adolescents by controlling the interference of physical growth, body fat, screen time and physical activity. Methods: A cross-sectional study with 933 adolescents (492 girls) aged 14-19 from the city of São José, Brazil. Lumbar strength was assessed using the isometric lumbar extension test proposed by the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology. Sexual maturation was classified according to Tanner’s criteria. Physical growth variables (age, body weight, stature, BMI), body fat (triceps and subscapular skinfolds), sedentary behavior based on screen time and overall physical activity were controlled in the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with a significance level of 5%. Results: Post-pubertal boys presented higher lumbar force compared to pubertal ones only when interference of BMI, body fat, screen time and physical activity was controlled. Pubertal girls presented higher lumbar force compared to post-pubertal ones, both when controlling the analysis for the studied variables and when not controlled by them. Conclusion: BMI, body fat, screen time and physical activity interfere in the difference in lumbar strength of boys, in which post-pubertal boys presented better performance in lumbar force compared to pubertal ones. Regardless of interference or not of these variables, pubertal girls presented better performance in lumbar force when compared to post-pubertal ones.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".