Measurement of Peripheral Muscle Strength in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".