Effectiveness of 12-Week Core Stability Training on Postural Balance in Soccer Players With Groin Pain: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Core stability training (CST) is effective in improving postural balance, core endurance, and self-reported outcomes in different populations. This study aimed to investigate the effect of CST in soccer players with groin pain (GP). HYPOTHESIS: CST would improve postural balance performance, core endurance, and self-reported outcomes in soccer players with GP. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. METHODS: Soccer players with GP who met the selection criteria were assigned randomly to a CST (CSTG, n = 10) or a control (CG, n = 10) group. The CG undertook no additional physical activity program besides their usual training. The CSTG performed a 12-week CST comprising 76 ~75 min sessions. Static (force platform) and dynamic (Y-Balance test) postural balance, core endurance (McGill trunk endurance tests), and self-reported outcomes (Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score [HAGOS]) were assessed before and immediately after the 12-week CST. RESULTS: > 0.05) were observed between CSTG and CG after the training period. CONCLUSION: A 12-week CST improved static (foam surface) and dynamic postural balance, core endurance measures, and HAGOS scores. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The beneficial effect of CST on improving postural balance, core endurance, and self-reported outcomes in soccer players with GP suggests that this training would be an important feature of rehabilitation programs for these players. Coaches and clinicians should prioritize CST training when designing rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".