Reliability of measures of quadriceps muscle function using magnetic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Magnetic stimulation can be used to assess muscle function by calculating voluntary activation using an interpolated twitch during maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) and control twitches to potentiated muscle. In this study we assessed the reliability of torque, electromyography (EMG), and voluntary activation variables. METHODS: Fifteen men completed 5 testing sessions (2 familiarization and 3 reliability trials) to assess quadriceps femoris muscle function. Intra- and interday reliability levels of torque and EMG variables were estimated using typical error ± 90% confidence limits, expressed as percentage [coefficient of variation (CV)] and intraclass correlation coefficient. The smallest worthwhile change was calculated as 0.2 × between-participant standard deviation. RESULTS: Intra- and interday torque variables for MVC were reliable (CV < 4%, ICC 0.98, and CV < 5%, ICC 0.99, respectively). EMG variables were less reliable than torque variables, with CVs ranging from 7% to 18%. CONCLUSION: Magnetic stimulation of the femoral nerve is a reliable method for assessing muscle function.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".