Effects of Asymmetric and Symmetric Sport Load on Upper and Lower Extremity Strength and Balance: A Comparison Between the Dominant and Non-Dominant Side in Adolescent Female Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to investigate the effects of primarily asymmetrical (soccer and volleyball) and symmetrical sport load (sprint and swimming) in the upper and lower limbs on dynamic balance and muscle strength and to compare these values in the dominant and non-dominant limbs. This study employed a cross-sectional design, included 45 adolescent female athletes from four sports, divided into asymmetric (ASYM, n = 25) and symmetric (SYM, n = 20) groups. They were assessed for maximal voluntary isometric muscle contraction (MVIC) relative muscular strength using a handheld dynamometer (HHD) for shoulder external rotation (ER) and internal rotation (IR), as well as hamstring and quadricep strength. Upper and lower limb balance were also assessed using the Upper (YBT-UQ) and Lower Quarter Y Balance Test (YBT-LQ) tests. The results showed significantly greater balance in the upper extremities of swimmers and in the lower extremities of the sprinters in both the dominant (DS) and non-dominant (NDS) sides than in other groups (p < 0.0001). However, no significant difference in internal and external shoulder rotator muscles strength between the groups (p > 0.05). Although significant differences were found in hamstring strength on the dominant side and quadricep strength on both sides (p < 0.05), a notable finding was that sprint athletes consistently demonstrated stronger quadriceps muscles as compared to other groups in both the dominant and non-dominant sides. According to the current findings, there are significant differences in upper and lower body balance, hamstring, and quadricep muscle strength among sports. This suggests that athletes of asymmetrical sports may need to improve non-dominant side knee strength and balance symmetry to prevent the risk of injury.
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) | 0.002 | 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".