A comparison of adductor pollicis fatigue in older men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex differences in fatigue resistance of the adductor pollicis (AP) muscle were studied in 24 older adults who were divided into three groups: 12 older men (69.8 +/- 4.60 years), 6 older women not on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (70.2 +/- 4.02 years), and 6 older women on HRT (68.7 +/- 6.47 years). Fatigue in the AP muscle was induced using an intermittent (5 s contraction, 5 s rest) submaximal voluntary contraction (50% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)) protocol, which was continued until exhaustion (i.e., when subjects could either no longer maintain a 5-s contraction at 50% MVC or when the MVC was deemed to be lower than the target force). There was no effect of HRT on MVC or time to fatigue (TTF); therefore, the older women were pooled as one subject group. At baseline, men were stronger than women for MVC (75.9 +/- 18.8 N in men vs. 56.8 +/- 10.0 N in women; P < 0.05) and evoked twitch force (7.3 +/- 1.7 N in men vs. 5.2 +/- 0.8 N in women; P < 0.05). There was no difference in TTF between men and women (14.77 +/- 7.06 min in men vs. 11.53 +/- 4.91 min in women; P > 0.20), nor was there a significant relationship between baseline muscle force and TTF (r = 0.14). There was also no difference in the pattern of fatigue and recovery between the men and women. These results suggest that there is no difference in endurance or fatigue characteristics of the AP muscle in men and women over the age of 65 years, and that baseline muscle force does not predict fatigue resistance in this muscle.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".