Comparison of core endurance and hamstring flexibility in adults with and without low back pain in Peshawar; a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Low back pain (LBP) is “the pain, muscle tension, or stiffness on the posterior side from the inferior margin of 12th rib to the gluteal fold”. LBP is the leading cause of disability and 6th in terms of overall global burden of diseases. Therefore, it is important to identify factors leading to LBP. Objectives: To assess and compare the core endurance and hamstring flexibility in adults with and without LBP. Methods: Analytical cross-sectional research was conducted on LBP and non-low-back pain participants at tertiary care hospitals of Peshawar. The study used a non-probability convenient sampling technique, the sample size of 82 subjects was divided into two groups: group A of LBP and group A of LBP and group B of non-low-back pain. Both genders of 18-50 years with a BMI of 18.5-29.9 were included. McGill’s core endurance and sit-and-reach tests were applied for data collection. Mann Whitney U test and independent sample t-test were used. Results: A total of 82 adults participated in this study. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significant difference in the flexors (U=0.00, p < .001), extensors (U=25.5, p < .001), right side flexors (U=151.0, p < .001), and left side flexors (U=218, p < .001) in LBP adults when compared to NLBP. The “independent-samples t-test” showed a significant difference (t= -2.20, df=80, p = 0.03) in the hamstring length between Group A (13.04 ± 2.84), and Group B (14.73 ± 3.97). Conclusion: A statistically significant difference exists in the core musculature’s endurance as well as in the length of the hamstring muscles between adult subjects with LBP and those who do not have LBP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".