Motor adaptations during stair ascent and descent in individuals with chronic primary low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Altered neuromuscular strategies, such as lumbar muscle activity spatial redistribution, have been observed in individuals with chronic primary low back pain (CLBP), particularly during intense isometric efforts, but not during low-effort functional tasks. This cross-sectional study aimed to determine whether lumbar muscle activity distribution and trunk kinematics differ between individuals with CLBP and healthy controls during a dynamic, moderate-effort task, namely stair ascent and descent, and to investigate the relationship between muscle activity distribution and psychological factors of CLBP. Forty adults (20 CLBP, 20 controls) completed stair ambulation trials while lumbar high-density surface electromyography and kinematic data were recorded. Spatial redistribution and RMS amplitudes of electromyography were analyzed during ascent and descent, and across swing and stance phases. Participants with CLBP exhibited spatial redistribution of muscle activity on the left side during both phases of ascent, and during the swing phase of descent. Higher RMS amplitudes were observed bilaterally in CLBP participants across all tasks and phases, except during the stance phase of descent. No kinematic differences were found between groups. No relationship was found between muscle redistribution activity and psychological factors. These results suggest that CLBP participants exhibit altered neuromuscular strategies during stair ambulation, a moderately challenging functional task.
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 | 0.001 | 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".