Reproducibility of velocity-dependent power: before and after lengthening contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of power using isokinetic testing has been shown to be highly reliable. However, isotonic and isokinetic testing involve specific mechanical constraints that likely necessitate different neuromuscular strategies. Therefore, the purpose here was to establish test-retest intrarater reliability (separated by 7 days) of loaded maximal shortening velocity and velocity-dependent power of the ankle dorsiflexors using the isotonic mode of the Biodex dynamometer (i) at baseline and (ii) throughout recovery following 150 high-intensity lengthening contractions. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC)(2,1) with 95% CIs were used to determine relative reliability, whereas absolute reliability included typical error (TEM) and typical error expressed as a coefficient of variation (TEM(CV)). Twenty-four young men and women volunteered for the study. Maximal shortening velocity and power were determined with a fixed resistance set at 20% of maximal voluntary isometric contraction across 2 testing sessions separated by 7 days. ICCs were 0.93 and 0.98 for maximal shortening velocity and peak power, respectively. Following the lengthening contractions, ICCs indicated high reliability for maximal shortening velocity and peak power, 0.86 and 0.94, respectively, suggesting that a similar amount of fatigue was incurred on both days. Measures of absolute reliability for maximal shortening velocity and peak power also yielded high reliability. The isotonic mode is highly reliable when testing velocity-dependent power of the ankle dorsiflexors at baseline and following fatiguing lengthening contractions. The high reliability of this measure is encouraging and suggests that the isotonic mode can be used in various settings to track group changes before and after training and following fatigue and lengthening contractions.
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) | 0.000 | 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".