Lower Limb Maximal Dynamic Strength and Agility Determinants in Elite Basketball Players
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to examine the relationship between squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and basketball-relevant tests and the variables that influence agility (T-test) in elite male professional basketball players (n = 14, age 23.3 +/- 2.7 years, height 195.6 +/- 8.3 cm, body mass 94.2 +/- 10.2 kg). T-test performance was significantly related to body mass (r = 0.58, p = 0.03) and to percentage of body fat (r = 0.80, p < 0.001). A significant negative correlation was observed between t-test and 5-jump test performance (r = -0.61, p = 0.02). Squat 1RM was significantly related to 5-, 10-, and 30-m sprint times. Stepwise correlation analysis showed percentage of body fat was the best single predictor factor (p < 0.05) of agility. Squat 1RM performance was the best single predictor of 5-m and 10-m sprint times (p < 0.05). In light of the present study's findings, agility should be regarded as a per se physiological ability for elite basketball players. Consequently, basketball-specific agility drills should be stressed in elite basketball training. Given the association between squat 1RM performance and short sprint times, squat exercises should be a major component of basketball conditioning.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it