Neural, biomechanical, and physiological factors involved in sex-related differences in the maximal rate of isometric torque development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has reported that lower maximal rate of torque development (dτ/dt max) exhibited by females, relative to males, during knee extension can be accounted for by normalization to a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC); however, this was not seen in the upper limb. The aim of the current work was to examine the contribution of maximum strength (τmax), twitch contraction time (CT), muscle fiber condition velocity (MFCV), and rate of muscle activation (Q30) to sex-differences in the dτ/dt max during maximal isometric dorsiflexion. Thirty-eight participants (20 males; 18 females) performed both maximal voluntary and evoked isometric contractions of the tibialis anterior across 3 days. Ten maximal compound muscle action potentials were elicited and subsequently followed by three, 5-s contractions. From the recordings, MFCV, dτ/dt max, τmax, CT, electromechanical delay (EMD), root-mean squared (RMS) amplitude, peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp), and Q30 were calculated. An ANCOVA showed that τmax accounted for all the sex-differences in dτ/dt max (p = 0.96). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to MFCV, RMS amplitude, Vpp amplitude, or CT. However, there was a significant sex-difference in dτ/dt max, τmax, and Q30. Females had longer evoked EMD times compared with males (15.69 ± 10.57 ms versus 9.95 ± 3.46 ms; p = 0.01), but the voluntary EMD times were not different. The current research supports the work by Hannah et al. Exp Physiol 97:618–629, (2012) that normalization to MVC in the quadriceps is able to account for all sex-differences in rate of toque development in the lower limb.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".