MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001953867

LUMBAR SPINE REACTION FORCES IN SEATED PARA-SPORT: CROSS-COUNTRY SIT-SKIING

2017· article· en· W7001953867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSittingTrunkLumbar spineBiomechanicsLumbarAthletesKyphosisKinematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION For wheel-chair users shoulder injuries [1] and lower back injuries [2] are common. Lower back kyphosis of the spine, increases the anterior shear force in the lower back [3] and increases the risk of shoulder injuries [4]. Cross-country sit-skiing (CCSS) is an endurance sport where the athlete is seated in a sledge mounted on a pair of skis and propel themselves by poling with a pair of sticks. This sport creates more equal loading on the muscles around the shoulder than wheel-chair rolling [5] which is positive in an injury perspective for the gleno-humeral joint [1]. Athletes in CCSS with reduced trunk muscle control often sits in a sledge with their knees higher than their hips (KH) and a backrest. This position is hypothesized to be associated with spinal kyphosis and hence an increased risk of injuries. Therefore we have created a new sitting position with knees lower than hips (KL) with the trunk restrained on a frontal support. The aim of this study was to compute the L4/L5 joint reactions and compare the results between the positions KH and KL. METHODS Five female abled-bodied cross-country skiing athletes (62.6 ± 8.1kg, 1.67 ± 0.05m) performed one exercise test session in each sitting position; The sessions included a sub-maximal incremental test, including 4-6 exercise levels of 3 min (exercise intensity nr 4, 37W, reflected race-pace) and a maximal time-trial (MAX) of 3 min on a commercial skiing ergometer (ThoraxTrainer A/S, Denmark). Full-body kinematics (Qualisys AB, Sweden) and pole forces (Biovision, Germany) were measured in 200 Hz. These data served as input to inverse dynamic simulations in The AnyBody Modelling system (AMS 6.0, Anybody Technology A/S, Denmark). For each participant and sitting position, simulations were made for exercise intensity 37W and MAX over four poling cycles using a 5th order polynomial muscle recruitment criteria. Compression forces and anterior shear forces between L4 and L5 were computed and normalized to each participant’s standing joint reactions. Data were compared pair-wise between the two sitting positions. Statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05) were marked with asterisk (*). Tendency of difference (0.05 ≤ p < 0.10) were marked (ǂ). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Performance was higher in position KH (KL: 0.77±0.08 W/kg, KH: 1.00±0.14 W/kg, p < 0.01). No difference were observed in cycle length or cycle time. Kinematics results showed that KL had less spine flexion and range of motion in flexion. KH showed higher mean pole force in 37W and tendency of higher peak pole force in MAX. In standing, L4/L5 compression and anterior shear forces were 354 ± 45N and 32 ± 11N respectively. The normalized L4/L5 reaction forces (fig. 1) were larger in KH, especially during MAX intensity due to higher power. For equal power output, 37W, the mean anterior shear force was larger in KH and the mean compression force showed tendency of larger in KH (p=0.077). Figure 1: Normalized joint reaction forces, compression and anterior shear forces, between vertebrae L4/L5 for the two sitting positions KH and KL with trunk restraint. Min – minimal force, Maximal force and Mean – mean force over the four poling cycles. CONCLUSIONS Based on inverse-dynamics musculo-skeletal simulations of 5 abled-bodied athletes, the sitting position KL with frontal restraint reduced the compression and shear force between the L4/L5 vertebrae but impeded performance. This study shows the difficulty of comparing performance and safety in the same piece of equipment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the Rolf & Gunilla Enström foundation and the Promobilia foundation, Sweden, for financial support, and the Ableway AB (Sweden) for construction of the sledges. REFERENCES Burnham RS, et al., Am J Sports Med, 21: 238-242, 1993. Thyberg M, et al., Disabil rehabil. 23:677-682, 2001. McGill SM, et al., Clin Biomech, 15: 777-780, 2000. Samuelsson KA, et al., J Rehabil Res Dev, 41: 65-74, 2004. Bjerkefors A, et al., Int J Sports Med, 34: 176-182, 2013.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)Same topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207