MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331969038 · doi:10.1097/hcr.0b013e3181ebf302

Measurement of Peripheral Muscle Strength in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2011· review· en· W2331969038 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsWest Park Healthcare Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIsometric exerciseDynamometerCOPDPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMuscle strengthMuscle weaknessPulmonary diseaseStrength trainingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief PURPOSE: Reduced maximal, peripheral muscle strength is associated with exercise intolerance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Therefore, it is important to accurately evaluate muscle strength to identify patients with muscle weakness and to prescribe adequate loads for resistance training. The objective here was to systematically identify and summarize the literature on measurement of peripheral muscle strength in individuals with COPD and to make recommendations for strength testing in clinical and research settings. METHODS: A literature search was conducted of electronic databases between 1999 and 2009 of all English language articles utilizing muscle strength measurements. RESULTS: The search resulted in retrieval of 178 articles, of which 66 were reviewed. Isometric muscle strength was measured using handgrip (n = 30), strain gauge (n = 15), computerized dynamometer (n = 13), magnetic stimulation (n = 8), handheld dynamometer (n = 6), or manual testing (n = 3). Isotonic muscle strength was measured using a hydraulic system (n = 3) or 1-repetition maximum (n = 9), and isokinetic muscle strength was measured using computerized dynamometer (n = 16). Methodological issues such as limb position, number of trials, subject familiarization, test instructions, rest periods, and muscle group tested were all identified as important variables to consider when developing a strength-testing protocol. CONCLUSION: Muscle strength has been measured in people with COPD using similar methods as in other clinical populations. Each method presents advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered when selecting the most relevant measure. Standardization of the test procedures is essential in both clinical and research settings to obtain valid and reliable measurements of muscle strength. Peripheral muscle strength has been measured in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using manual muscle testing, weight machines, handheld dynamometers, and more complex systems including strain gauges, magnetic stimulation, and computerized dynamometers. Each method presents advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered when selecting the most relevant measure.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.286 · 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