MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163416236 · doi:10.1191/0269215500cr340oa

Effects of upper and lower limb static exertions on global synkineses in hemiparetic subjects

2000· article· en· W2163416236 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Boissy, Daniel Bourbonnais, Denis Gravel, André Arsenault, Yves Lepage

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper limbElectromyographyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnkleLower limbPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Global synkineses are nonpurposive pathological involuntary muscle activities or movements elicited at several or all of the joints of the affected limb or limbs during voluntary forceful resisted contractions. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of upper and lower limb exertions on manifestations of upper limb global synkineses in hemiparetic subjects. DESIGN: Involuntary muscle activities on the affected upper limb of 11 hemiparetic subjects and on the left or right upper limb of 10 control subjects were recorded using surface electromyography during successive bilateral maximal ankle exertions and during contralateral grips. RESULTS: Significant differences in the level of involuntary electromyography (EMG) activities were observed between experimental conditions (ANOVAs, p < 0.05). EMG levels in hemiparetic subjects were significantly higher during contralateral grip tasks than during the ankle exertions. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that upper limb global synkinases are more prevalent in specific tasks and that this task specificity may reflect the neurophysiological mechanisms involved in the generation of global synkinases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207