MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of Sex on Neural Excitability and Central Fatigue for a Submaximal Elbow Extensor Task

2019· article· en· W2955836646 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra F. Yacyshyn, Chris J. McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseTranscranial magnetic stimulationMuscle fatigueMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotor cortexStimulationElectromyographyH-reflexPsychologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared to other muscle groups (e.g., elbow flexors), few studies (two) have investigated the role of sex on muscle fatigue of the elbow extensors (EE). The greater fatigability usually seen for males compared to females was not observed, so the EE warrant further study. PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of sex on peripheral, motoneuronal, and cortical excitability as well as central fatigue with a submaximal EE task. METHODS: To date, 13 participants (7 females) have performed a 15min sustained isometric EE contraction at the level of electromyographic activity (EMG) recorded at 15% of maximal torque, followed by recovery contractions over 5min. Pre- and post-fatigue as well as at the end of each minute, evoked potentials were recorded from triceps brachii in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex (TMS; motor evoked potentials, MEPs), cervicomedullary stimulation (cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials, CMEPs) and brachial plexus stimulation (maximal M-wave; Mmax). MEPs and CMEPs were elicited 100ms after a conditioning TMS pulse. To assess central fatigue, voluntary activation (VA) was calculated pre- and post-fatigue using superimposed and resting tetani evoked via trains of 5 stimuli (100Hz) delivered over triceps brachii. RESULTS: During fatigue, Mmax area did not change. The CMEP (normalized to Mmax) was reduced to 46.9±15.6% and 50.1±36.9% of the control ratio in females and males, respectively. The MEP (normalized to CMEP) was facilitated to 153.8±95.8% in females and 260.9±195.1% in males. At 5min of recovery, the normalized CMEP remained depressed in females and males (57.1±31.8% and 47.6±34.0%, respectively), whereas the normalized MEP remained facilitated at 220.1±106.4% in females and 184.5±101.3% in males. VA decreased from 97.0±1.8% to 84.3±18.0% in females and 95.5±3.4% to 76.7±21.0% in males at task termination, and showed incomplete recovery at 5min (89.0±6.9% females and 84.6±13.0% males). CONCLUSIONS: Apart from a trend toward greater central fatigue in males, the preliminary results support published findings, which show negligible sex differences with isometric fatigue of the EE. Additional research is needed to ascertain why the EE differ from other muscle groups in this regard. Supported by NSERC, CFI, and BCKDF

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→