MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194685925 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-46.4.395

Performance of Healthy Braced Participants During Aerobic and Anaerobic Capacity Tasks

2011· article· en· W2194685925 on OpenAlexafffund
Neetu Rishiraj, Jack Taunton, Brian Niven, Robert Lloyd-Smith, William D. Regan, Robert Woollard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaÖssur
KeywordsAnaerobic exerciseAerobic capacityContext (archaeology)Computer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Knee braces were introduced in sports approximately 30 years ago. However, the effects of a functional knee brace (FKB) on aerobic and anaerobic performance after fatigue are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether FKB use in noninjured participants hindered performance during aerobic (Léger beep test) and anaerobic (repeated high-intensity shuttle test [RHIST]) tasks. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven healthy male provincial and national basketball and field hockey athletes (age = 19.4±3.0 years, range, 17-26 years; height = 182.6±6.8 cm, range, 168-196 cm; mass = 80.0±9.1 kg, range, 66-108 kg). INTERVENTION(S): Each participant was provided a custom-fitted FKB and performed 5 nonbraced (NBR) testing sessions over 3 days, followed by 5 braced (BR) testing sessions over 3 days, for a total of 17.5 hours of testing per condition. During each testing session, participants performed 1 trial of the Léger beep test and 1 trial of the RHIST in each condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Predicted maximal oxygen consumption (Vo(2) max) and time performance measures were recorded for each NBR and BR trial. RESULTS: Initial performance levels were lower for BR than NBR for both the Léger beep test (BR = 44.3 mL/kg/min, NBR = 47.3 mL/kg/min; F(1,26) = 8.726; P = .007) and the RHIST (BR = 16.5 seconds, NBR = 16.2 seconds; F(1,26) = 13.98, P = .001). However, with continued FKB use, the aerobic performance measure remained higher for only the first 2 BR testing sessions (NBR = 46.9 mL/kg/min, BR = 42.4 mL/kg/min; F(3.0,79.8) = 4.95, P = .003). For the anaerobic test, no performance difference was noted between the testing conditions (NBR = 16.2 seconds, BR = 16.4 seconds; P = .7), whereas fatigue levels were lower during BR testing sessions (NBR = 33%, BR = 31%). After 14.0 hours of FKB use, performance levels were almost equal between the testing conditions (NBR = 47.6 mL/kg/min, BR = 46.1 mL/kg/min). CONCLUSIONS: We found an initial decrement in performance when the FKB was used during an aerobic or anaerobic task. However, after 14.0 hours of FKB use, accommodation to the FKB was possible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207