Reliability of Hand-Held Dynamometry in Assessment of Knee Extensor Strength After Hip Fracture
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
OBJECTIVES: To examine the reliability of hand-held dynamometry in assessing knee extensor strength in inpatients undergoing rehabilitation after hip fracture and to examine the discriminant validity of this measure. DESIGN: A total of 16 subjects (14 women; mean +/- SD, 79 +/- 7 yrs) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation after hip fracture volunteered to participate. Isometric knee extensor strength of the fractured and unfractured sides was determined with a hand-held dynamometer. Subjects were retested 1-2 days after the initial testing session. RESULTS: Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients were high for both the fractured (0.91) and unfractured legs (0.90). A low coefficient of variation was observed for both the fractured (15.3%) and unfractured (14.7%) sides. The maximal knee extensor strength was significantly different when comparing the fractured (7.9 +/- 3 kg) and unfractured (15.6 +/- 4 kg) legs. When comparing test 1 and test 2 mean values for the fractured leg, the scores significantly differed (t = 3.14, P < 0.01), with 13 of 16 subjects scoring higher on test 2. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-held dynamometry is a reliable and valid tool for assessment of knee extensor strength after hip fracture. Reduced knee extensor strength in the fractured leg may be an important component limiting rehabilitation progress in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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