The effect of asymmetric lifting tasks on hemidiaphragm movement: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to determine whether lifting a weight with the left or right hand has a different effect on the right hemidiaphragm. Methods This study investigated the motion of the right hemidiaphragm during asymmetric lifting tasks using M-mode ultrasonography. Forty healthy adults (30 women and 10 men, aged 27.6 ± 5.4 years) performed tidal breathing and loaded breathing, with the latter involving lifting a weight with either the left or right hand. Results Using one-way ANOVAs, significant differences were observed for the right hemidiaphragmatic position when holding the weight with the contralateral (left) hand for inspiration ( p = .004) and total excursion ( p < 0.001), but not for expiration (p = 0.872) compared to tidal breathing. When tidal breathing positions were compared to holding the weight with the ipsilateral (right) hand, significant differences were observed for all three measures: inspiration ( p = 0.005), expiration ( p < 0.001), and total excursion ( p = 0.023). Comparison of the right hemidiaphragmatic position during contralateral and ipsilateral holds showed significant differences in expiration ( p < 0.001) and total excursion ( p < .001), but not for inspiration (p = 0.997). Conclusion The right hemidiaphragm showed different responses during one-handed weight lifting on the ipsilateral side compared to the contralateral side. Specifically, under ipsilateral loading, the expiratory position of the right hemidiaphragm was observed to be more caudal.
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 | 0.000 | 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".