Investigation of the relationship between core muscle endurance and postural habits and awareness in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study investigated the relationship between core muscle endurance, postural habit, and awareness in young adults. Healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 with no back or neck disorders were included in the study. Postural habits and understanding of the participants were assessed using the Postural Habits and Awareness Scale (PHAS), and core muscle endurance was measured using the Mcgill Core Endurance Tests. As a result of the study, a significant positive correlation was found between postural habit score and trunk flexor test time (r = 0.324; p = 0.047), trunk extensor test time (r = 0.529; p = 0.001), side bridge test time (r = 0.337; p = 0.039) and plank test time (r = 0.508; p = 0.001). However, no significant relationship was found between postural awareness score and core muscle endurance (p > 0.05). The study findings reveal that core muscle endurance is related to postural habits but is not directly related to postural awareness. As a result, it was emphasized that core muscle endurance is an essential factor in developing and maintaining postural habits. These findings indicate that improving postural habits may be essential to support musculoskeletal health.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".