MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reliability Of Muscle Power And Functional Performance In Healthy, Older Women

2020· article· en· W3041246678 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantina Katsoulis, Samantha Jeske, Rachel Goodman, Cristiane Monteiro da Cruz, Catherine E. Amara

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMuscle powerCoefficient of variationSarcopeniaMathematicsStatisticsInternal medicinePower (physics)Psychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional performance measures in older adults are commonly used in studies investigating age-related declines in mobility. Surprisingly, there is a lack of literature on the clinimetric properties associated with these tests, especially in healthy, older adults. In addition, reliability of tests is commonly measured over 1-2 weeks, and does not address the question of longer-term reliability that might be more relevant for a typical training study. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the longer-term reliability (over 9 weeks and 15 weeks) of an isotonic muscle power test (using an isokinetic dynamometer) and commonly-used functional measures (Short Physical Performance Battery, maximal gait, 30s chair stand test, stair climbing, and the 400-meter walk) in healthy, older women. METHODS: Participants were older women (n = 18) who were healthy and untrained (Age = 73.3 ± 3.4 years, Height = 159.6 ± 7.7 cm, Weight = 69.5 ± 12.7 kg, BMI = 27.3 ± 4.8). Test-retest measures (muscle power and function) took place at baseline, week 9, and week 15. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and the coefficient of variation of the typical error (CV) are reported for all time point comparisons. RESULTS: ICCs ranged from 0.83-0.97 for muscle power, and 0.64-0.93 for functional performance, indicating moderate to excellent reliability. CVs for upper-leg muscle power ranged from 5.7 - 10.5%, and lower-leg muscle power ranged from 9.9 - 20.0%, while CVs for functional tests ranged from 1.9 - 14.9%. For function, the stair-climb power test demonstrated the greatest reliability from baseline to week 15, with the CV = 8.94% and ICC = 0.94 (CI = 0.82-0.98). There were no changes in mean values for tests over time, with the exception of the chair stands which improved significantly from baseline to week 15 (p < 0.05). Although the chair stands were significantly different, these changes were smaller than what has previously been identified as clinically meaningful (eg. < 3.3 chair stands for the 30s chair stand test). CONCLUSIONS: Muscle power and functional tests demonstrated consistency over durations typically used in exercise studies. Conducting these tests under standardized conditions should enable researchers to confidently describe the impact of exercise interventions on muscle power and function in this population.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→