Influence of sex gap on muscle strength and functional mobility in patients with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine whether there were differences in handgrip strength and functional mobility between patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and healthy controls with regard to sex and to ascertain whether these differences were related to lung function. Thirty-eight patients with CF (21 women) and 38 healthy controls aged 18–65 years were included. Muscle weakness and functional mobility were assessed through handgrip strength; walking speed; and time, velocity, and power derived from a single sit-to-stand (STS) test. Patients with CF showed differences for STS variables and walking speed but not for handgrip strength, compared with healthy controls. Considering sex differences, female patients showed differences for all variables analyzed while males with CF only exhibited differences for STS variables, compared with healthy controls. Females with CF showed moderate relationship between muscle weakness, functional mobility, and lung function (|r| = 0.45–0.49; p ≤ 0.05) whereas no relationships were observed for males with CF. The influence of chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa and pancreatic insufficiency on muscle weakness and functional mobility was similar in both sexes. Differences in muscle strength and functional mobility were predominantly observed in females with CF. These results suggest an important effect of sex gap on muscle weakness and functional mobility in patients with CF. Novelty The influence of sex gap on muscle weakness in CF has been shown. Muscle weakness was predominantly observed in females with CF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".