Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The legitimacy of manual muscle testing (MMT) is dependent in part on the reliability of assessments obtained using the procedure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review, therefore, was to consolidate findings regarding the test-retest and inter-rater reliability of MMT from studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. METHODS: An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases and a hand search were conducted to identify articles addressing the test-retest or inter-rater reliability of MMT. Data on participants, testing specifics, and findings regarding reliability were extracted. RESULTS: Of 189 unique articles identified, 9 were found to meet inclusion/exclusion criteria. The studies were highly variable in regard to the population tested, MMT procedure and scoring, and findings. Nevertheless, based on pairwise comparisons, substantial or almost perfect test-retest and inter-rater agreement was demonstrated for most muscle actions tested. CONCLUSIONS: Reliable assessments of strength may be obtained by MMT but not assumed. Further research is required to address the reliability of MMT across pathologies, muscle groups, and test procedures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".