MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Analysis Of The Upper Extremity Muscle Response During An Acute Bout Of Isometric Handgrip Exercise.

2016· article· en· W2483996517 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Caruana, David Paquin, Kevin Milne, David M. Andrews, Cheri L. McGowan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseFlexor Carpi UlnarisBrachioradialisExtensor Carpi UlnarisBicepsElectromyographyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRepeated measures designPhysical therapyPopulationWristElbowSurgeryUlnar nerveMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isometric handgrip (IHG) training lowers blood pressure in several populations and is accepted by the American Heart Association as an alternate blood pressure lowering treatment. However, high costs associated with traditional computerized IHG devices may create an economic barrier for some people. PURPOSE: As a preliminary step in investigating less expensive options, the purpose of this study was to determine whether an inexpensive mechanical IHG device elicits similar upper extremity muscle response via electromyography (EMG) to the traditional computerized IHG device. METHODS: Normotensive individuals (n = 8; age = 25.8 (6.0) y) recruited from the general population performed a standard IHG bout (4, 2 minute isometric contractions at 30% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) separated by a 4 minute recovery time between contractions) using the computerized and mechanical IHG device. Each bout occurred in random order, and was separated by 30 min of seated rest. Raw surface EMG data were collected at 20-500 Hz (full wave rectified, low pass filtered using a cutoff frequency of 2 Hz) during each bout in the brachioradialis (BR), flexor carpi ulnaris (FCU), extensor carpi ulnaris (ECU), biceps brachii (BB) and triceps brachii (TB). Raw EMG linear envelopes were normalized to the peak activity of MVC trials and averaged over time intervals (22 sec) representing 5 epochs during each bout. Data were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and presented as means (SD). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the devices for the BB, TB and ECU (p > 0.05). Greater EMG activity was observed in the BR [218 (161) %MVC computerized versus 135 (96) %MVC mechanical; p<0.05] and FCU [529 (328) %MVC computerized versus 165 (130) %MVC mechanical; p<0.05] when IHG was performed with the computerized IHG device than when using the mechanical IHG device. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that muscle activation is similar in some, but not all, muscles of the upper limb when IHG exercise is performed on a computerized versus mechanical device. More research is needed to determine whether differences in muscle activation using a mechanical device elicit similar blood pressure lowering benefits as observed in traditional isometric handgrip exercise using a computerized IHG device.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→