Traditional versus dynamic sitting: Lumbar spine kinematics and pain during computer work and activity guided tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic sitting may mitigate low back pain during prolonged seated work. The current study compared pelvis and lumbar spine kinematics, pain, and work productivity, in traditional and dynamic sitting. Sixteen participants completed three 20-min blocks of computer work and activity guided tasks in a traditional office chair or backless and multiaxial rotating seat pan while kinematics were measured from accelerometers on the low back. Pain ratings were recorded on a visual analogue scale every 10 min. Similar pelvis and lumbar kinematics emerged when performing computer work in traditional and dynamic sitting. Pelvis and lumbar sagittal and frontal plane shifts and fidgets were largest for dynamic sitting in the activity guided tasks. Buttocks pain was higher in dynamic sitting, but low back pain and work productivity were unaffected. Dynamic sitting increased spine movement during activity guided tasks, without negatively impacting lumbar kinematics, low back pain, or productivity during seated computer work.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".