Comparison of core endurance in individuals with and without lower crossed syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of current study was to assess the core endurance in individuals with and without lower crossed syndrome. Study design: It was a cross sectional study. Place and duration of study: The study was conducted at Foundation University, Islamabad from February 2023 to January 2024. Material and Methods: This comparative cross-sectional study included 158 participants (aged 19-30) through purposive sampling technique. Written consent was obtained from the participants before participation. McGill’s Core Endurance Battery was used to measure the core endurance and analysis was done using SPSS version 21.1.1 Results: This study included 158 participnts, with mean age of 21.81 ± 2.43 years. This study showed that for individuals with LCS, mean trunk flexor endurance time was 12.38±8.36 seconds, trunk extensor endurance time was 6.73±4.92 seconds. For the right lateral endurance, it was 3.89±2.61seconds and left lateral endurance test was 3.87±3.0 seconds. Whereas for individuals without LCS, mean trunk flexor endurance time was 14.67±11.69 seconds, trunk extensor endurance time was 9.35±8.62 seconds. For the right lateral endurance, it was 7.67±7.58 and 7.26±7.73for left lateral endurance. Conclusion: This study concluded that there are significant differences regarding the measured core endurance for extensor, left lateral and right lateral endurance tests between the healthy group and the lower cross group (p < 0.05) and there was no significant difference in flexor endurance (p ≥ 0.05) between individuals with and without lower crossed syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".