Reproducibility of jumping mechanography in healthy children and adults.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe mechanographic tests that can be performed by patients with a range of functional abilities and to assess the reproducibility of test results in healthy adults and children. METHODS: Fifteen adults and 13 children underwent two separate sessions, one week apart. Participants performed five different tests in both sessions: Multiple one-legged hopping, multiple two-legged hopping, single two-legged jump, heel-rise test, chair-rise test. All measurements were recorded with a portable force platform. RESULTS: The main outcome measures of each test (peak force relative to body weight or peak power relative to body weight, depending on the test) showed no systematic differences between Session 1 and 2 for any of the test results. Coefficients of variation for the suggested main outcome parameters ranged between 3.4% and 7.5% for multiple one-legged hopping, multiple two-legged hopping, single two-legged jump and the heel-rise test, but were higher for the chair-rise test (8.0% in adults, 15.6% in children). CONCLUSIONS: The five mechanographic tests assessed in the present study yield reproducible outcome measures in healthy subjects. It is justified to evaluate the usefulness of these tests in different patient populations.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.001 | 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 it