Relationship between core function and pressure pain threshold in senior women with non-specific chronic low back pain: cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNLBP) is a public health issue. Dysfunctions in muscle activation and spinal stability are estimated to directly impact pain intensity. Additionally, senior women experience greater decline in muscle function due to aging, rendering this demographic more susceptible to developing low back pain. The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between core muscle instability, strength, and endurance with pressure pain threshold in senior individuals with CNLBP. METHODS: This is a quantitative observational study, with a descriptive cross-sectional design, conducted on women aged 60 to 79 years. The pressure pain threshold (PPT). The pressure pain threshold (PPT) was assessed using a pressure algometer applied to the paravertebral and anterior tibial musculature. Trunk instability was assessed on both a stable and an unstable seat, positioned atop a force platform that provided real-time displacement of the pressure center. Maximum isometric strength and endurance of trunk flexors and extensors were assessed using the McGill protocol. Person's correlations coefficient (r) was calculated, and the data were presented as mean and standard deviation. The significance level was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: This study included 49 senior women (67,3±5,6 years; body mass index of 28,5±5,2 kg/m2; pain intensity of 4,6±2,3 on a 0-10scale). No correlation was observed between PPT at L3, L5 and TA with lumbar instability, maximum isometric strength and trunk muscle endurance. CONCLUSION: In this study, no correlation was found between lumbar instability, maximum isometric strength and trunk muscle endurance with the PPT in senior women with CNLBP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".