Comparison of strength measurements under single-joint and multi-joint conditions in hemiparetic individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that the measurement of strength is inappropriate in patients with stroke, in large part because of the presence of abnormal synergy patterns. The aim of the present study was to characterize force production during multi-joint maximal exertion involving different combinations of activation between shoulder and elbow flexors and extensors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS: A convenience sample of 16 chronic hemiparetic stroke subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximal torques in flexion and extension at the shoulder and the elbow were measured using static dynamometers (single-joint condition). In addition, the maximal forces produced at the wrist were measured in four directions in the sagittal plane requiring different torque combinations between shoulder and elbow flexors and extensors (multi-joint condition). RESULTS: No difference was found across directions for the ratios of maximal forces (paretic/nonparetic) in the multi-joint condition (p = 0.227; mean ratios (+/- SD) for each direction ranging from 0.59+/-0.23 to 0.68+/-0.27), suggesting that the ability to produce force did not change as a function of the required torque combination. In addition, relative torques (% of the maximal torque in the single-joint condition) exerted during the multi-joint exertions were similar on the paretic and the nonparetic side. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support the assumption that force production is limited by abnormal synergy patterns between flexors and extensors at the shoulder and the elbow in hemiparetic 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".