Isokinetic Strength of the Dominant and Non-dominant Elbow in Elite Male Volleyball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to compare the elbow isokinetic strength applied at different angular velocities on the dominant and non-dominant side in elite male volleyball players. Fifteen elite volleyball players participated in the research. Isokinetic elbow flexion and extension strength were separately obtained on concentric/concentric dominant and non-dominant side as 5 repetitions at 60˚.s-1 angular velocity, 10 repetitions at 180˚.s-1 and 15 repetitions at 300˚.s-1. In the research, the peak torque (PT), peak torque/body weight (PT/BW), flexion/extension ratio (B/T), angle of PT, work and power parameters were compared between the dominant and non-dominant elbows. No significant difference was found between the dominant and non-dominant side in the elbow isokinetic strength parameters of the subjects at three different velocities. A significant difference was found at three different velocities only in the angle of PT flexion (p < 0.05). It is thought that this difference may result from the muscle shortening that may occur on muscle length (longitudinal effect) as a result of the more concentric contraction of the muscle on the dominant side compared to the non-dominant muscle. Consequently, there is not any isokinetic strength difference between the dominant and non-dominant elbow in elite male volleyball players. Isokinetic elbow test can provide important information regarding the potential risk factors for elbow injuries. For this reason, it is recommended to include this test in the functional screening of volleyball players.
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 | 0.000 | 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".