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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23915724)

  • 1. Validation of a dynamic linked segment model to calculate joint moments in lifting.
    de Looze MP; Kingma I; Bussmann JB; Toussaint HM
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 1992 Aug; 7(3):161-9. PubMed ID: 23915724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The error of L5/S1 joint moment calculation in a body-centered non-inertial reference frame when the fictitious force is ignored.
    Xu X; Faber GS; Kingma I; Chang CC; Hsiang SM
    J Biomech; 2013 Jul; 46(11):1943-7. PubMed ID: 23768468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The evaluation of a practical biomechanical model estimating lumbar moments in occupational activities.
    de Looze MP; Kingma I; Thunnissen W; van Wijk MJ; Toussaint HM
    Ergonomics; 1994 Sep; 37(9):1495-502. PubMed ID: 7957027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bottom-up estimation of joint moments during manual lifting using orientation sensors instead of position sensors.
    Faber GS; Kingma I; van Dieën JH
    J Biomech; 2010 May; 43(7):1432-6. PubMed ID: 20189574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Foot positioning instruction, initial vertical load position and lifting technique: effects on low back loading.
    Kingma I; Bosch T; Bruins L; van Dieën JH
    Ergonomics; 2004 Oct; 47(13):1365-85. PubMed ID: 15513714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Biomechanical analysis and assessment of lumbar stress during load lifting using a dynamic 19-segment human model.
    Jäger M; Luttmann A
    Ergonomics; 1989 Jan; 32(1):93-112. PubMed ID: 2924764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Estimating 3D L5/S1 moments and ground reaction forces during trunk bending using a full-body ambulatory inertial motion capture system.
    Faber GS; Chang CC; Kingma I; Dennerlein JT; van Dieën JH
    J Biomech; 2016 Apr; 49(6):904-912. PubMed ID: 26795123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Estimating 3-D L5/S1 moments during manual lifting using a video coding system: validity and interrater reliability.
    Xu X; Chang CC; Faber GS; Kingma I; Dennerlein JT
    Hum Factors; 2012 Dec; 54(6):1053-65. PubMed ID: 23397813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. In vivo lumbo-sacral forces and moments during constant speed running at different stride lengths.
    Seay J; Selbie WS; Hamill J
    J Sports Sci; 2008 Dec; 26(14):1519-29. PubMed ID: 18937134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison between two dynamic methods to estimate triaxial net reaction moments at the L5/S1 joint during lifting.
    Larivière C; Gagnon D
    Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 1998 Jan; 13(1):36-47. PubMed ID: 11415769
    [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 the effects of bilateral posterior dynamic and rigid fixation devices on the loads in the lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.
    Rohlmann A; Burra NK; Zander T; Bergmann G
    Eur Spine J; 2007 Aug; 16(8):1223-31. PubMed ID: 17206401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biomechanics of two-level Charité artificial disc placement in comparison to fusion plus single-level disc placement combination.
    Grauer JN; Biyani A; Faizan A; Kiapour A; Sairyo K; Ivanov A; Ebraheim NA; Patel TCh; Goel VK
    Spine J; 2006; 6(6):659-66. PubMed ID: 17088196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of changes in lordosis on mechanics of the lumbar spine-lumbar curvature in lifting.
    Shirazi-Adl A; Parnianpour M
    J Spinal Disord; 1999 Oct; 12(5):436-47. PubMed ID: 10549710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Estimation of 3-D peak L5/S1 joint moment during asymmetric lifting tasks with cubic spline interpolation of segment Euler angles.
    Xu X; Chang CC; Faber GS; Kingma I; Dennerlein JT
    Appl Ergon; 2012 Jan; 43(1):115-20. PubMed ID: 21529774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Lumbar spine loads during the lifting of extremely heavy weights.
    Cholewicki J; McGill SM; Norman RW
    Med Sci Sports Exerc; 1991 Oct; 23(10):1179-86. PubMed ID: 1758295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effects of lifting speed on the peak external forward bending, lateral bending, and twisting spine moments.
    Lavender SA; Li YC; Andersson GB; Natarajan RN
    Ergonomics; 1999 Jan; 42(1):111-25. PubMed ID: 9973875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.