Reliability of Lower Extremity Muscle Power and Functional Performance in Healthy, Older Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of the long-term reliability of muscle power and functional performance tests in older, healthy adults is warranted since determining whether performance is consistent over longer durations is more relevant for intervention studies. Objective. To assess the long-term test–retest reliability of measures of muscle power and lower body functional performance in healthy, nonexercising, older women. Methods. Data were derived from a nonexercising control group (n = 18; age = 73.3 (3.4) years; height = 159.6 (7.7) cm; body mass = 69.5 (12.7) kg; BMI = 27.3 (4.8)) of a randomized controlled trial of muscle power training in older women. Participants underwent lower extremity muscle power (Biodex) and functional testing (Short Physical Performance Battery, gait speed, 30-second chair stands, stair climbing, and 400-meter walk) at week 0 (baseline), 9, and 15. Results. For the upper leg, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were very high for knee extension power (0.90–0.97) and high to very high for knee flexion power (0.83–0.96). For lower-leg power, ICCs were high to very high for plantar flexion and dorsiflexion (0.83–0.96). ICCs for functional performance were moderate to very high (0.64–0.93). Coefficient of variation of the typical error (CVTE) was <10.5% for knee extension/flexion power, 9.9–20.0% for plantar flexion/dorsiflexion power, and 1.9–14.9% for functional performance. Knee extension power and stair climb power demonstrated the highest reliability for muscle power and function, respectively. Mean values did not change over time, with the exception of the chair stands ( p < 0.05 ); however, these changes were not considered clinically meaningful. Conclusions. The current study provides evidence supporting the long-term reliability of performance assessments of muscle power and lower body functional capacity over a period of up to 15 weeks in healthy, older women.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 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 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".