Muscle function at the wrist after eccentric exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effects of eccentric exercise by the wrist extensor muscles on the function and motor control of synergist wrist extensor muscles and the antagonist wrist flexor muscles. METHODS: Ten subjects were tested repeatedly over a period of 11 d, once before and four times after a bout of strenuous eccentric exercise with the wrist extensor muscles. Tests performed as indicators of muscle injury were wrist extension MVC, ROM, and soreness. Tests performed as measures of function and motor control were maximum joint velocity, ability to sustain a constant torque, and the ability to track a changing torque. RESULTS: Indicators of muscle injury: subjects exhibited a decline in wrist extension MVC and ROM, which peaked on day 1, and reported that muscle soreness was greatest on day 2. All measures returned to baseline values by day 10. Measures of function and motor control: subjects exhibited a greater difficulty sustaining a submaximal contraction and tracking torque after eccentric exercise. Greater torque variances in these tests were most evident at high torque levels. Subjects exhibited the greatest difficulty 24 h after eccentric exercise and had recovered by day 10. There was no change in maximal wrist extension velocity. CONCLUSIONS: Strenuous eccentric exercise by wrist extensors had an effect on function and motor control of the wrist extensor muscles. The effect was most evident during contractions in which high torque was required. The response of all of the wrist extensors after the exercise bout was similar, suggesting that they operated in a synergistic manner. The antagonists wrist flexors showed increased coactivation after eccentric exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".