MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reliability of Lower-Extremity Isokinetic Dynamometry Testing of the Ankle, Knee and Hip

2007· article· en· W1999106795 on OpenAlexaff
Katrina A. McQuoid, Jennifer B. Edmonds, Catherine M. MacPhail, Chris A. McGibbon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseAnkleMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRange of motionReliability (semiconductor)Knee flexionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comprehensive and clinically relevant lower-extremity muscle strength testing protocol in needed for use in elderly populations with mobility and balance disorders that is both efficient and reliable. Isokinetic dynamometry (ID) systems are commonly used to measure muscle strength in healthy and disabled individuals; 1 however, there are no data available on the test-retest reliability of ID torque measures for a comprehensive testing protocol. PURPOSE: To develop a comprehensive and efficient testing protocol for the ankle (dorsi/plantar), knee (flexion/extension), and hip (flexion/extension & ab/adduction), in healthy young adults, and assess the test-retest reliability of peak isokinetic torque of dominant and non-dominant legs. METHODS: Six healthy adults (mean age: 23±6 yrs, 4 female) were recruited for the study. Five trials of isokinetic testing were performed at 60°/s for each joint. Each trial consisted of a flexion/abduction trial, 15 sec rest, followed by an extension/adduction trial. After 15 sec rest another trial began. Each subject completed a second testing session after 1 week (same time of day). Test re-test reliability was assessed using the ICC (model 3). RESULTS: The testing protocol (which also included isometric and range of motion tests) took an average of 1.5 hours to complete. Isokinetic torque measurement for dominant and non-dominant sides were repeatable for hip extensors (ICC: dominant .88, non-dominant .90), hip adductors (.92, .90), knee extensors (.76, .90), ankle dorsiflexors (.88, .94) and plantarflexors (.91, .70). Limbs with excellent reliability only on the dominant side were hip flexors (.87, .31) and knee flexors (.76, .13). Hip abductor reliability was very poor for both sides (. 12, -.13). CONCLUSION: ID can be a reliable method for acquiring strength measures in young healthy adults. However, applications to older populations with musculoskeletal pathology, such as unilateral knee OA, will require additional protocol refinement, particularly for the hip abductors. Reliable measurements are required to better understand the role hip abductors play in preventing disease progression in people with medial knee OA.2 1. Salem et al. Med Sci Sports Exer 2000;32:1 679–84; 2. Chang et al. Arthritis Rheum 2005;52:3515–9. Funded by NSERC Discovery Grant # 50221566.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→