Functional Tests of Leg Muscle Strength and Power in Adults With Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Muscle weakness is an important systemic consequence in adults with cystic fibrosis, but it can be challenging to evaluate clinically. This study examined the validity of lower-extremity functional tests to assess quadriceps muscle strength and muscle power. METHODS: The subjects underwent 4 functional tests: 30-s sit-to-stand test, stair-climb power test, vertical jump height, and triple hop distance. Quadriceps muscle strength and power were tested by using a dynamometer (the accepted standard). Quadriceps strength was measured from 5 maximum voluntary isometric contractions to obtain peak torque. Quadriceps power was evaluated from the peak power and peak velocity attained during isotonic contractions of the quadriceps at a preset load of 20% of the peak torque. Pearson correlations were used to determine associations between functional tests and accepted measures of quadriceps strength and power. RESULTS: Fifteen adults with cystic fibrosis (9 males; mean ± SD age, 32 ± 13 y; mean ± SD FEV 1 % predicted, 73 ± 19) completed the study. The stair-climb power test had the strongest correlations with peak torque (r = 0.84, P < .001) and power (r = 0.65, P = .009). Vertical jump height was moderately correlated with quadriceps strength (r = 0.62, P = .014) and quadriceps peak power (r = 0.51, P = .048). Similarly, triple hop distance had moderate correlations with quadriceps strength (r = 0.78, P = .001) and peak power (r = 0.57, P = .026). The sit-to-stand test was only associated with quadriceps strength (r = 0.55, P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Functional tests can be applied clinically to measure leg muscle strength and power, with the stair-climb power test having the strongest associations with the standard measures. The utility of using functional tests to evaluate longitudinal changes in muscle function and its association with clinical outcomes should be examined in cystic fibrosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".