A correlation study of weak core muscles with hamstring muscles flexibility in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hamstring, being a two-joint muscle, tends to shorten over time, resulting in tightness, affecting performance in daily activities and is also capable of generating exaggerated posterior pelvic tilt, leading to decreased lumbar lordosis. Weak core muscles have been associated with hamstring tightness, and strengthening the core has been attempted in an effort to relax the hamstring tightness. It is believed that the hamstrings overact and over a period of time tightens, when the core is weak, to compensate for postural stability. Method Thirty-three subjects, both male and females with and without hamstring tightness, were assessed for their core endurance through McGill’s core endurance test battery. It was followed by active knee extension test to determine degree of hamstring tightness on both sides. Correlation between the two variables was statistically analyzed. Results Pearson’s correlation was used to analyze the collected data. A moderate positive but significant correlation ( p = 0.02) was found between flexor endurance test and active knee extension (both sides). A weak positive but significant correlation ( p = 0.05) was found between extensor endurance test and active knee extension (both sides). Correlation between the right and left lateral bridge with their respective side hamstring flexibility was negative and not significant ( p = 0.916 (right lateral torso endurance); p = 0.339 (left lateral torso endurance)). Conclusion Since there is a moderate positive but significant correlation between the flexion torso endurance test and both side hamstring flexibility and a weak positive but significant correlation between extension torso endurance test and both side hamstring flexibility, the core (flexor, extensor, and lateral) should be thought of as a whole unit when strengthening in order to maintain and improve hamstring flexibility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".