Comparison of Postural and Functional Indicators in Adolescent Boys with and Without Non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Back pain is one of the most common disorders, caused by various factors and leading to diverse consequences. This study aimed to compare specific postural and functional indicators in adolescent boys with and without non-specific chronic low back pain. Methods: The present study employed a causal-comparative design. A total of 30 adolescent male students with non-specific chronic low back pain and 30 healthy adolescent male students were purposefully selected. Individuals with non-specific chronic low back pain were identified using a visual pain scale and confirmed by a physical medicine specialist. Kyphosis and lordosis were assessed using a flexible ruler, proprioception was evaluated through the lumbar angle active reconstruction test at a 30-degree angle using a goniometer, core stability was measured using McGill functional tests, upper limb function was assessed with the Upper Limb Y Test, and static and dynamic balance were evaluated using the Stork Test and the Lower Limb Y Test, respectively. An independent t-test was used to compare the average variables between the two groups. Results: The findings revealed significant differences in proprioception, core stability, and static and dynamic balance between the groups with and without non-specific chronic low back pain. However, the two groups observed no significant differences between other variables. Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of proprioception, core stability, and static and dynamic balance in adolescent boys with non-specific chronic low back pain. Rehabilitation protocols for this population should prioritize developing and strengthening these components.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".