Assessment of Dynamic Balance, Muscle Strength and Pain in Young Women with Generalized Joint Hypermobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to assess dynamic balance, muscle strength, and pain in young women with generalized jointhypermobility.Research methods: A cross-sectional research design was used in this study. The Beighton scale was used toassess joint hypermobility; the Y test was performed to assess injury risk; a hand-held dynamometer was applied toassess upper extremities’ muscle strength; the McGill tests were used for evaluation of the endurance of trunk muscles’ strength; a numeric analog scale and pain map were used to assess pain intensity and localization.Participants: Twenty-fve young females (age: 22(18–28; 21,16) years; body mass index: (23, 19,2–24, 23,2)kg/m²) participated in this study.Results: The median Beighton score value was 7 (4-9;7.48) points. The Y balance test revealed that 36% (n=9)of the participants were at risk of injury when standing on the dominant leg, and 64% (n=16) when standing on thenon-dominant leg. 64% (n=16) of the young women had a normal grip strength of the dominant hand, and 56%(n=14) had normal non-dominant handgrip strength. Only 20% (n=5) of young women with joint hypermobility hadan abdominal-to-back muscle strength endurance ratio within the normal range and lateral muscle endurance ratiowas within the normal range only in 16% of women.Conclusions: Our pilot study showed that young women with joint hypermobility have reduced hand musclestrength, an imbalance in trunk muscle static endurance and an increased risk of injury in more than half of the subjects. As many as 76% of the young women in this study reported experiencing pain in different areas of the body.Keywords: increased range of movement, fitness, injury risk .
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 | 0.003 | 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".