Relationship between core stability and Functional Movement Screening test in athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Aim. Functional Movement Screening (FMS™) tests provide beneficial information regarding the movement and stability in the kinetic chain. The core region of the body, as the basis of movement chain, accounts for the facilitation of force and torque transmission. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between functional movement screen composite scores and core stability muscles endurance in athletes. Material and Methods. Forty-five male athletes with FMS scores ≤14 (LoFMS) and forty-five male athletes with FMS scores >14 (HiFMS) were studied. Stability of core muscles of the participants was investigated and compared using the McGill’s test. Results. The results of this study showed a significant difference in the mean stability of the anterior trunk muscles (p = 0.001), right side trunk muscles (p = 0.005) and left side trunk muscles (p = 0.001) between the athletes with LoFMS and HiFMS scores. Muscles’ endurance in the group with HiFMS score was significantly higher than the group LoFMS score (p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the mean stability of the posterior trunk muscles between the two groups. In general, a significant difference was found between sum of core stability scores obtained from lumbar-pelvic stabilizer muscles in the posterior, anterior and lateral sides of athletes LoFMS and HiFMS scores. Conclusions. The results of this study showed that weakness in core stability can have a negative influence on movement patterns
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".