MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977248173 · doi:10.1002/mus.21870

Sudden loading perturbation to determine the reflex response of different back muscles: A reliability study

2011· article· en· W1977248173 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda R. Santos, Christian Larivière, Alain Delisle, David W. McFadden, André Plamondon, Daniel Imbeau

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookePolytechnique MontréalInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationElectromyographyGeneralizability theoryReliability (semiconductor)Physical medicine and rehabilitationReflexMathematicsStatisticsMedicineReproducibilityAnesthesiaPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we estimate the reliability of reflex response variables to identify the main sources of variability and to estimate appropriate measurement strategies to obtain more reliable measures. Back muscle surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded in healthy males during anteriorly-directed sudden loading perturbations applied to the trunk. Measures of EMG reflex latency and amplitude were obtained. The generalizability theory was used as a framework to estimate the magnitude of the different variance components and the reliability of the measures corresponding to various simulations of different measurement strategies. Reliability of the different variables was poor to moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient range 0-0.62). Averaging scores across homologous muscles and several trials were strategies to achieve more acceptable reliability. The reflex response of back muscles is inherently variable, and a large measurement effort is necessary to obtain reliable and, consequently, valid and responsive estimations of this neuromuscular 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207