Caracterização da dor e sua relação com o equilíbrio postural em atletas de ginástica rítmica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rhythmic Gymnastics (RG) is a high performance sport that requires your movements of large amplitudes athletes, strength and a good hand-eye coordination, postural. In addition, due to the specificity of Sporting gesture the gymnasts are constantly exposed to repetitive strain and postures, reverberating in musculoskeletal injuries and consequently in pain,which can negatively affect the body balance. Objective: to characterize the musculoskeletal pain in elite athletes of RG. Secondarily compare the static postural balance og gymnasts with nonathletic controls as well as correlate the pain index with te balance in the atletes of RG. Methods: Participated in the survey 50 female youth, 25 gymnasts composing the Athlete Group (AG) and 25 non-athletes composing the Control Group (CG). The volunteers were subjected to the evaluation of the painful perception using the Brazilian version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (BR-MPQ), and the posture equilibrium, through the Estabilometria. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee (CAAE 61990516.4.0000.5546). Results: The AG manifested significantly greater painful perception (p < 0.001); The pain in athletes presented sensory and evaluative characteristics; The most painfully complaining regions were the hip joint (52%) followed by ankle-foot (44%). In the intergroup comparison of the static posture equilibrium was observed greater displacement of the COP in the AG (16.513 mm ² ± 1.48) relative to the CG (10.212 mm ² ± 1.14). In the correlations of equilibrium with the domains of pain, it was observed only a significant correlation between the evaluative pain and the VmCOP in the direction mediolateral (r = 0.414; p = 0.040). Conclusion: Athletes demonstrate greater painful perception and lower posture static equilibrium when compared to non-athletes controls. However, they possess greater ability to reestablish posture control. Moreover, the presence of painful perception showed a weak but significant relationship with the posture control in elite athletes of Gr.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".