Electrically evoked force loss of the knee extensors is equivalent for young and old females and males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data are scant on sex-related differences for electrically evoked contractions, which assess intrinsic contractile properties while limiting spinal and supraspinal adaptations to mitigate fatigue. Furthermore, the few studies that exist use stimulus frequencies considerably higher than the natural motor unit discharge rate for the target force. The purpose of this study was to compare force loss to electrically evoked contractions at a physiological stimulus frequency among young females (n = 12), young males (n = 12), old females (n = 11), and old males (n = 11). The quadriceps of the dominant leg were fatigued by 3 min of intermittent transcutaneous muscle belly stimulation (15 Hz stimulus train to initially evoke 25% of maximal voluntary force). Impairment of tetanic contractile impulse (area under the curve) did not differ between sexes for young or old adults or between age groups, with a pooled value of 55.2% ± 12.4% control at the end of fatigue. These data contrast with previous findings at 30 Hz, when the quadriceps of females had greater fatigue resistance than males for young and old adults. The present results highlight the impact stimulus frequency has on intrinsic fatigability of muscle; the findings have implications for future fatigue paradigms and treatment approaches when utilizing electrical stimulation for rehabilitation. Novelty Fatigue was not different between sexes with a stimulation frequency comparable to discharge rates during voluntary contractions. These results highlight that stimulus frequency not only influences fatigue development but also between-group differences.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".