Reliability of Concentric Ankle Dorsiflexion Fatigue Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of an isokinetic test for ankle dorsiflexion fatigue on a Biodex dynamometer. Young (21 to 32 years), recreationally active men (n = 10) and women (n = 10) performed 50 concentric (60 degrees.s-1) dorsiflexion contractions, on two different occasions. Total work (TW), losses in work (work fatigue; WF), as well as relative losses in peak toruqe, an example being "3-3" which compared the first three to last three repetitions, were measured. The intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC2.1) and coefficients of variation (CV), as well as the Bland-Altman plots and analyses showed that the variables using peak torque and TW were more reliable than WF, with WF having a CV of 11.3% and the best peak torque variable, 3-3, having a CV of 5.6%. In conclusion, ankle dorsiflexion fatigue can be reliably assessed on a Biodex dynamometer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".