## 3 Results  
Considering Table 1, sociodemographic data did not show statistically significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) in age between the two groups. Nevertheless, statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) in terms of greater height, weight, and Nijmegen scores were shown in favor of the elite basketball players versus the amateur basketball players.  
Regarding Table 2, ultrasound measurements of the abdominal wall muscles showed statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) in IRD and increased left TrAb thickness as well as decreased right and left EO thickness in favor of the elite versus amateur basketball players. The rest of the measurements did not show any statistically significant differences (\(p>0.05\)).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Data** & **Amateur (\(n=16\))** & **Elite (\(n=16\))** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Age, y & 23.0 \(\pm\) 7.0 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 21.5 \(\pm\) 8.75 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 0.590 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ Weight, kg & 79.98 \(\pm\) 8.97 \({}^{\star}\) & 93.56 \(\pm\) 15.24 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.004 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Height, m & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.94 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.002 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ BMI, kg/m\({}^{2}\) & 21.89 \(\pm\) 2.03 \({}^{\star}\) & 23.83 \(\pm\) 2.88 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.036 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Nijmegen test \({}^{\star}\) & 2.0 \(\pm\) 2.76 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 12.43 \(\pm\) 3.24 \({}^{\star}\) & \textless{}0.001 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) was applied. \({}^{\star\star}\) Student \(t\)-test for independent samples was performed. \({}^{\ddagger}\) Median \(\pm\) interquartile range (IR) was used. \({}^{\ddagger}\) Mann–Whitney \(U\) test was utilized.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Sociodemographic data and respiratory distress scores of the basketball players. \({}^{\ddagger}\)  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Measurement** & **Amateur (\(n=16\)) \({}^{\star}\)** & **Elite (\(n=16\)) \({}^{\star}\)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Distance (cm) & & & \\ IRD & 1.03 \(\pm\) 0.41 (0.58–1.96) \({}^{\star}\) & 1.50 \(\pm\) 1.01 (0.90–3.64) \({\dagger}\) & 0.001 \({\ddagger}\) \\ \hline Thickness (cm) & & & \\ Right RA & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.30 (0.93–2.02 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.57 \(\pm\) 0.33 (1.10–2.26) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.260 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Right EO & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.30 (0.93–2.02 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.13 (0.34–0.89) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.026 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Right IO & 1.10 \(\pm\) 0.20 (0.82–1.57 \({}^{\star}\) & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.27 (0.36–1.38) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.484 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Right TrAb & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.10 (0.26–0.65) \({\dagger}\) & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.19 (0.29–1.15) \({\dagger}\) & 0.149 \({\ddagger}\) \\ Left RA & 1.41 \(\pm\) 0.27 (1.02–1.84) \({}^{\star}\) & 1.54 \(\pm\) 0.36 (1.06–2.37) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.247 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Left EO & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.16 (0.48–0.94) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.14 (0.30–0.89) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.002 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Left IO & 1.13 \(\pm\) 0.20 (0.87–1.47) \({}^{\star}\) & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.22 (0.70–1.41) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.487 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ Left TrAb & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.07 (0.29–0.54) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.09 (0.31–0.65) \({}^{\star}\) & 0.034 \({}^{\star\star}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) (minimum–maximum) was applied. \({}^{\star\star}\) Student \(t\)-test for independent samples was performed. \({}^{\star}\) Median \(\pm\) interquartile range (IR) (minimum–maximum) was used. \({}^{\ddagger}\) Mann–Whitney \(U\) test was utilized.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Ultrasound imaging of the abdominal wall muscles.  
Regarding the multivariate regression analysis of the statistically significant differences of the abdominal wall RUSI measurements shown in Table 3, statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) in IRD as well as right and left EO and left TrAb thickness with a prediction model \(R^{2}\) varied from 0.196 to 0.507.