The influence of workload on muscle fatigue, tissue properties, and postural stability in older and younger workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demographic aging and extended working lives have prompted interest in the physiological changes that occur with age, particularly in the lumbar spine. Age-related declines in muscle quality and intervertebral disc alterations may reduce muscular endurance, strength, and postural stability, potentially increasing the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in older workers. As experienced workers play an important role in addressing labor shortages, understanding the impact of age-related physiological changes on the biomechanical properties of the lumbar spine is key to ensure safe and sustainable employment for aging individuals. This study aimed to compare the impact of daily work-related physical efforts on lumbar muscular endurance and fatigue, spine tissue properties, and postural stability between older and younger workers. A total of 40 participants, 20 in Group 1 (young workers: ≤50 years; mean age: 28.89 ± 7.23) and 20 in Group 2 (older workers: >50 years; mean age: 59.40 ± 5.29) were recruited. Measurements taken at the beginning and end of the workday included lumbar muscle endurance, maximal voluntary contraction, disc height and postural stability. Age groups were compared using repeated measures ANOVA across the two measurement times. No significant interaction between age and time of day was observed, indicating that, for similar workload, both age groups experienced similar changes. Despite age-related effects on maximal force production and postural stability, incorporating weight as a covariate revealed that these differences were partially explained by the weight discrepancy between older and younger workers. The study suggests that age may not be the primary determinant of the impact of a workday on older workers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".