Inter-limb differences in upper quarter mobility/stability are not associated with performance in competitive swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Y Balance Test–Upper Quarter (YBT–UQ) is a cost-effective, well-established, closed kinetic chain test to assess inter-limb asymmetries in the upper quarter that could negatively affect swimming performance. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine YBT–UQ performances and inter-limb differences as well as its association with swimming performance in athletes with diverging levels of expertise. Methods Forty female and male competitive swimmers (age range: 10–22 years) with different expertise levels (A-squad: n = 9, B-squad: n = 12, C-squad: n = 19) were tested (reach distances for the YBT–UQ) and swimming performance was calculated using the ratio of individual to world best time. Results YBT–UQ performances (i.e., inferolateral reach direction for the dominant arm: p = .027, ηp2 = .12 and the non-dominant arm: p = .031, ηp2 = .17) but not YBT–UQ inter-limb differences significantly differed between groups and were largest in swimmers with the lowest expertise level (i.e., C-squad). Further, YBT–UQ performances (i.e., inferolateral reach direction [r = −.68 to −.70, both p < .05] and composite score [r = −.65 to −.67, both p < .05] for both arms and medial reach direction for the non-dominant arm [r = −.64, p < .05]) but not inter-limb differences were significantly and negatively correlated with swimming performance among B-squad swimmers. Conclusions Our results suggest that inter-limb differences in upper quarter mobility/stability are not influenced by the level of expertise and have no significant associations with swimming performance. However, greater reach distances were correlated with lower swimming performance for the B-squad swimmers indicating that a training-related increase in upper quarter mobility/stability could worsen swimming performance in those athletes.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".