Child–adult differences in muscle strength and activation pattern during isometric elbow flexion and extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle strength and activation were compared in boys and men during maximal voluntary elbow flexion and extension contractions. Peak torque, peak rate of torque development (d/dmax), rate of muscle activation, and electromechanical delay (EMD) were measured in 15 boys (aged 9.7 +/- 1.6 years) and 16 men (aged 22.1 +/- 2.8 years). During flexion, peak torque was significantly lower in boys than in men (19.5 +/- 5.8 vs. 68.5 +/- 11.0 Nm, respectively; p < 0.05), even when controlling for upper-arm cross-sectional area (CSA), and peak electromyography activity. Boys also exhibited a lower normalized d/dmax (7.2 +/- 1.7 vs. 9.5 +/- 1.6 (Nm.s-1).(Nm-1), respectively; p < 0.05) and a significantly longer EMD (75.5 +/- 28.4 vs. 47.6 +/- 17.5 ms, respectively). The pattern was similar for extension, except that group differences in peak torque were no longer significant when normalized for CSA. These results suggest that children may be less able to recruit or fully utilize their higher-threshold motor units, resulting in lower dimensionally normalized maximal torque and rate of torque development.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".