Quadriceps fatigue caused by catchlike‐inducing trains is not altered in old age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative loss of peak force from electrical stimulation protocols has provided inconsistent results when used to compare muscle fatigability between young and old adults. In addition to the effect of task on these comparisons, age-related alterations in the development and relaxation of force are possible factors that have not been considered. The purposes of this study were to compare the fatigability of the quadriceps of young (26.7 +/- 1.0 years) and old men (78.3 +/- 1.3 years), as assessed by changes in peak force, force time integral (FTI), and half-relaxation time (HRT), during intermittent electrical stimulation protocols, and to determine whether manipulation of the activation frequency affected the comparisons. Fatigue was caused by constant-frequency (CF), and catchlike-inducing (CI) train protocols, both of which consisted of intermittent trains (6 pulses on: 650 ms off) of stimulation. After each protocol, the force-generating capacity of the fatigued muscle was assessed with three trains of stimuli: a CF train, a CI train and a 1-s 50-HZ train. There was no effect of age on the loss of peak force or the development of low-frequency fatigue induced by either protocol. Conversely, irrespective of the protocol, the FTI was better maintained by approximately 9% in the old than young men. Because peak force did not differ between groups during fatigue, it is likely that the FTI was preserved by the exacerbated slowing of HRT in the quadriceps of the old men. The results confirm an apparent paradox between muscle fatigue and stimulation with CI trains: a single CI train produces greater force than a CF train in a fatigued muscle, but there is greater fatigue induced by repetitive CI than CF train stimulation. Old age did not affect this fatigue paradox.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".