Isokinetic strength of shoulder rotator muscles in powerlifters: correlation between isometric and concentric muscle actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isokinetic strength has been useful to assess muscle function related to sports and prevent injuries. The present study measured the isokinetic isometric and concentric shoulder rotators strength, agonist/antagonist ratio, and examined the relationships between isometric and concentric peak torque, and agonist/antagonist ratio in powerlifters compared to a control group. METHODS: The participants were divided into two groups: powerlifters group (N.=14) and physically active group (N.=9). Participants' were evaluated on isokinetic dynamometer for isometric, and concentric (two velocities, 60°/s and 180°/s) strength of shoulder external (ER) internal rotation (IR). Isometric contractions lasted 10 seconds, and concentric modes were 5 repetitions. RESULTS: Bilateral significant differences, between dominant and non-dominant side, were found in ER peak torque at isometric mode in powerlifters group (P=0.021). Powerlifters showed higher IR peak torque at isometric mode in dominant (P=0.040) and non-dominant side (P=0.014) than physically active group. Pearson correlations between isometric peak torque and concentric velocities ranged between 0.49 and 0.89 for powerlifters group, and between 0.73 and 0.93 for physically active group. For agonist/antagonist ratio, pearson correlation ranged between 0.47 and 0.83 for powerlifters group, and between 0.48 and 0.86 for physically active group. CONCLUSIONS: The bilateral differences in ER movement at isometric mode in powerlifters suggest that exercises for shoulder rotators must be included on training for joint safety and balance between sides despite isometric shoulder rotators strength in powerlifters was higher than physically active individuals. Results presented positive correlation between both muscle actions, isometric and concentric, in peak torque and agonist/antagonist ratio.
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) | 0.004 | 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".