Evaluation of Novel Tests of Neuromuscular Function Based on Brief Muscle Actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although widely used, the standard strength test (SST) is known to provide moderate correlations with functional measures, while being based on sustained maximum forces and a relatively large number of trials. The aim of this study was to compare the concurrent (with respect to SST) and external validity (with respect to the standard balance and maximum power output tests) of 2 alternate tests of neuromuscular function based on brief isometric actions. The first test provides a slope between the rates of torque development (RTD) and peak torques (T) measured from a number of consecutive rapid actions performed across a wide range of T levels (brief force pulses, BFP). The second test (alternating consecutive maximum contractions, ACMC) provides T and RTD from multiple cycles of rapid alternating maximum actions of 2 antagonistic muscle groups. The results obtained from 29 young and healthy subjects revealed moderate-to-high concurrent validity of ACMC (median r = 0.56, p < 0.05) and its similar, if not higher external validity than SST. Conversely, both the concurrent and external validity of BFP seemed to be relatively low (r = 0.23, p > 0.05). Because ACMC could also have advantage over SST by being based on somewhat lower and transitional muscle forces exerted and fewer trials are needed for testing 2 antagonistic muscles, the authors conclude that ACMC could be considered as either an alternative or complementary test to SST for testing the ability for rapid exertion of maximum forces. Conversely, BFP may offer a measure of the neuromuscular system "as a whole" that is complementary to SST by providing outcomes that are relatively independent of muscle size and function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".