The effect of chronic low back pain and lumbopelvic stabilization instructions on gluteus medius activation during sidelying hip movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background People with chronic low back pain (LBP) often demonstrate altered muscle activation with movements that involve the lumbopelvic region and hips.Objective The purpose of this study was to compare gluteus medius activity during sidelying hip abduction (SHA) and sidelying hip abduction-lateral rotation (SHALR) with and without instruction for lumbopelvic stabilization in people with and without chronic LBP.Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted recruiting participants with (n = 17) and without (n = 17) chronic LBP. Gluteus medius activity was recorded with surface electromyography during the performance of SHA and SHALR with and without instructions including the abdominal drawing-in maneuver for lumbopelvic stabilization.Results For SHA and SHALR, there was a significant main effect for instruction for stabilization indicated by a decrease in gluteus medius activity with instructions (p = .001, p < .001). There was not a significant main effect of chronic LBP on gluteus medius activity between groups for either activity. There was no significant interaction effect of pain and instruction for stabilization with SHA or SHALR.Conclusion Knowledge of changes in gluteus medius muscle activation patterns with trunk stabilization instruction may help clinicians with assessment of exercise performance to optimize gluteus medius activation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".