These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17466313)

  • 1. Mathematical and empirical proof of principle for an on-body personal lift augmentation device (PLAD).
    Abdoli-Eramaki M; Stevenson JM; Reid SA; Bryant TJ
    J Biomech; 2007; 40(8):1694-700. PubMed ID: 17466313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An on-body personal lift augmentation device (PLAD) reduces EMG amplitude of erector spinae during lifting tasks.
    Abdoli-E M; Agnew MJ; Stevenson JM
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Jun; 21(5):456-65. PubMed ID: 16494978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. PLAD (personal lift assistive device) stiffness affects the lumbar flexion/extension moment and the posterior chain EMG during symmetrical lifting tasks.
    Frost DM; Abdoli-E M; Stevenson JM
    J Electromyogr Kinesiol; 2009 Dec; 19(6):e403-12. PubMed ID: 19200755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of on-body lift assistive device on the lumbar 3D dynamic moments and EMG during asymmetric freestyle lifting.
    Abdoli-E M; Stevenson JM
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2008 Mar; 23(3):372-80. PubMed ID: 18093709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of an on-body personal lift assist device (PLAD) on fatigue during a repetitive lifting task.
    Lotz CA; Agnew MJ; Godwin AA; Stevenson JM
    J Electromyogr Kinesiol; 2009 Apr; 19(2):331-40. PubMed ID: 18055220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The personal lift-assist device and lifting technique: a principal component analysis.
    Sadler EM; Graham RB; Stevenson JM
    Ergonomics; 2011 Apr; 54(4):392-402. PubMed ID: 21491281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Does the personal lift-assist device affect the local dynamic stability of the spine during lifting?
    Graham RB; Sadler EM; Stevenson JM
    J Biomech; 2011 Feb; 44(3):461-6. PubMed ID: 21030023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Development of anthropomorphic multi-D.O.F. master-slave arm for mutual telexistence.
    Tadakuma R; Asahara Y; Kajimoto H; Kawakami N; Tachi S
    IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph; 2005; 11(6):626-36. PubMed ID: 16270856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Wrapping of trunk thoracic extensor muscles influences muscle forces and spinal loads in lifting tasks.
    Arjmand N; Shirazi-Adl A; Bazrgari B
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Aug; 21(7):668-75. PubMed ID: 16678948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of squat and stoop dynamic liftings: muscle forces and internal spinal loads.
    Bazrgari B; Shirazi-Adl A; Arjmand N
    Eur Spine J; 2007 May; 16(5):687-99. PubMed ID: 17103232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effectiveness of an on-body lifting aid at reducing low back physical demands during an automotive assembly task: assessment of EMG response and user acceptability.
    Graham RB; Agnew MJ; Stevenson JM
    Appl Ergon; 2009 Sep; 40(5):936-42. PubMed ID: 19223026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of asymmetric dynamic and isometric liftings on strength/force and rating of perceived exertion.
    Hattori Y; Ono Y; Shimaoka M; Hiruta S; Kamijima M; Shibata E; Ichihara G; Ando S; Villaneuva MB; Takeuchi Y
    Ergonomics; 1996 Jun; 39(6):862-76. PubMed ID: 8681928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of body segment dynamics on loads at the lumbar spine during lifting.
    Tsuang YH; Schipplein OD; Trafimow JH; Andersson GB
    Ergonomics; 1992 Apr; 35(4):437-44. PubMed ID: 1597174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Low-back loading in lifting two loads beside the body compared to lifting one load in front of the body.
    Faber GS; Kingma I; Bakker AJ; van Dieën JH
    J Biomech; 2009 Jan; 42(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 19084840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of trunk muscle forces and spinal loads estimated by two biomechanical models.
    Arjmand N; Gagnon D; Plamondon A; Shirazi-Adl A; Larivière C
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2009 Aug; 24(7):533-41. PubMed ID: 19493597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles.
    von Arx M; Liechti M; Connolly L; Bangerter C; Meier ML; Schmid S
    Front Bioeng Biotechnol; 2021; 9():769117. PubMed ID: 34805121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Lumbosacral compression in maximal lifting efforts in sagittal plane with varying mechanical disadvantage in isometric and isokinetic modes.
    Kumar S
    Ergonomics; 1994 Dec; 37(12):1975-83. PubMed ID: 7828579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Spinal loads during individual and team lifting.
    Dennis GJ; Barrett RS
    Ergonomics; 2002 Aug; 45(10):671-81. PubMed ID: 12437851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Using sitting as a component of job rotation strategies: are lifting/lowering kinetics and kinematics altered following prolonged sitting.
    Howarth SJ; Beach TA; Pearson AJ; Callaghan JP
    Appl Ergon; 2009 May; 40(3):433-9. PubMed ID: 19081557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of 3D dynamic virtual model to link segment model for estimation of net L4/L5 reaction moments during lifting.
    Abdoli-Eramaki M; Stevenson JM; Agnew MJ; Kamalzadeh A
    Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2009 Apr; 12(2):227-37. PubMed ID: 18949651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.