Evaluation of Trunk Muscle Strength and Endurance: A Comparison of Women With and Without Chronic Ankle Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the strength and endurance of the trunk muscles in women with chronic ankle instability (CAI) compared with those who do not have CAI. Methods Sixty-two women were assigned into 2 equal groups of 31; group A included women with CAI and group B included healthy women. Peak torques per body weight of the trunk extensors and flexors were measured using a Biodex System 3 Isokinetic Dynamometer . McGill core endurance tests (prone bridge, right side bridge, left side bridge, trunk flexion, and horizontal back extension) were administered to assess trunk muscle endurance. Statistical analysis using 1-way between-subjects multivariate analysis of variance was performed. Results No significant differences in peak torques per body weight strength ratios of trunk extensors and flexors between the 2 tested groups ( P > .05) were found. Similarly, no significant difference was found in the trunk muscle endurance between the 2 tested groups ( P > .05). Conclusion No statistically significant differences were observed in the strength and endurance of the trunk muscle between women with CAI and healthy women.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".