Torque and Muscle Activation Impairment Along With Insulin Resistance Are Associated With Falls in Women With Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Góes, SM, Stefanello, JMF, Homann, D, Lodovico, A, Hubley-Kozey, CL, and Rodacki, ALF. Torque and muscle activation impairment along with insulin resistance are associated with falls in women with fibromyalgia. J Strength Cond Res 30(11): 3155-3164, 2016-Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic pain condition associated with reduced muscle strength, which can lead to functional incapacity and higher risk of falls. The purpose of the study was to compare maximal ankle joint torque, muscle activation, and metabolic changes between women with and without FM. In addition, the relationship between those aspects and retrospectively reported falls in women with FM was determined. Twenty-nine middle-aged women with FM and 30 controls were recruited. Fall history, pain intensity, and pain threshold were assessed. Plasma glucose levels and insulin resistance (IR) were determined. Peak torque and rate of torque development (RTD) were calculated, and muscle activation was assessed from maximum isometric voluntary ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexion contractions. In addition, voluntary muscle activation failure of the anterior tibialis muscle during maximal dorsiflexion was calculated. When compared to controls, women with FM reported higher number of retrospectively reported falls, exhibited higher IR, showed reduced plantar flexion and dorsiflexion RTD, had lower plantar flexion peak torque, and demonstrated more antagonist coactivation and higher muscle activation failure (p ≤ 0.05). Higher muscle activation failure was explained by glucose level and pain intensity (adj R = 0.28; p ≤ 0.05). Reduced plantar flexion and dorsiflexion peak torque explained 80% of retrospectively reported falls variance; also, high antagonist coactivation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.6; p ≤ 0.05) and high IR (OR = 1.8; p ≤ 0.05) increased the chance of falls in the FM group. A combination of metabolic factors and muscle function increased the odds of retrospectively reporting a fall in FM. Both aspects may be considered in interventions designed for reducing falls in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".