Comparative Impact of Core Stabilization vs Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Exercises on Muscle Activation, Endurance, and Balance in Obese Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of core stabilization exercise (CSE) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) exercise on core muscle activation, core muscle endurance, proprioception, and balance in 80 obese children. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this single-blind, randomized controlled study, 80 obese children aged 10-13 years were randomly divided into 3 groups. The first group received CSE (n=27) and the second group received PNF exercises (n=27) 3 days a week for 8 weeks. The third group, which was the control group (n=26), received no treatment. Participants were evaluated before treatment (BT) and after treatment (AT) and at follow-up (3 months after treatment). Core muscle activation level was evaluated by Sahrmann Core Stability test (SCST), lumbar core muscle endurance was evaluated by McGill core endurance tests, and lumbar joint position sense (JPS) was evaluated by laser cursor. The single-leg standing balance test (SLSBT) and Y balance test (YBT) were used for static and dynamic balance, respectively. RESULTS AT and at follow-up, core activation, core endurance, JPS, and static balance were significantly different between the groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups in YBT dominant and non-dominant side mixed reach distances (P>0.05). Clinical effect sizes were higher in the CSE group for all outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS CSE and PNF exercises improve the level of core muscle activation, lumbar core muscle endurance, lumbar JPS, and balance in obese children. However, the results of this study show that CSE are more clinically effective in obese children. The effects decline in the medium term.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".