Bilateral Level of Effort of the Plantar Flexors, Hip Flexors, and Extensors During Gait in Hemiparetic and Healthy Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Muscle weakness is recognized as a key factor in gait performance of poststroke individuals, but its impact on lower-limb muscular effort has been scarcely studied. The aims of this study were to compare the level of effort of the lower limbs of hemiparetic and able-bodied individuals and to assess the effect of side, cadence, and muscle group. METHODS: Seventeen chronic hemiparetic participants (7 females and 10 males) with a mean age of 60.5+/-13.4 years were assessed when walking. They were compared with a group of 14 able-bodied individuals. The level of effort was estimated from the muscular utilization ratio (MUR), which relates the walking moment of a given muscle group to its maximal potential moment. Peak MUR and MUR(area) were used as main outcome measures. RESULTS: Hemiparetic individuals showed greater peak MUR values (45% to 78%) than the able-bodied subjects matched for cadence (24% to 63%). For both groups, the peak MUR values were similar between sides and increased with cadence. At self-selected cadence, the plantar flexors showed greater peak MUR values, whereas at maximal cadence, levels of effort for all muscles were equivalent. The MUR(area) values at the hip joint were greater for the hemiparetic group, and both groups had values that increased with cadence. Differences between sides and muscle groups were noted for the hemiparetic and healthy individuals, respectively. Large peak MUR values were associated with high MUR(area) values. CONCLUSIONS: For a similar cadence, the levels of effort of hemiparetic individuals were greater than those of the able-bodied. In the presence of muscle weakness, similar bilateral levels of effort could mean that hemiparetic individuals relied on their sense of effort while walking.
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) | 0.000 | 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".