MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166171013 · doi:10.1177/17585732211019373

Shoulder electromyography activity during push-up variations: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3166171013 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Kowalski, Denise M. Connelly, Jennifer M. Jakobi, Jackie Sadi

Bibliographic record

VenueShoulder & Elbow · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromyographyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Push-ups (PU) are a common closed chain exercise used to enhance shoulder girdle stability, with variations that alter the difficulty or target specific muscles. To appropriately select and prescribe PU exercises, an understanding of muscle activity during variations of the PU is needed. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify common PU variations and describe their muscle activation levels. Methods: Databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus for articles published between January 2000 and November 2019. Results: Three hundred three articles were screened for eligibility with 30 articles included in the analysis. Six PU types and five muscles met the criteria for analysis. Weighted mean electromyography (EMG) amplitude was calculated for each muscle across PU types and for each PU type as a measure of global muscle activity. Triceps and pectoralis major had the highest EMG amplitude during unstable, suspension, incline with hands on a ball and the standard PU. Serratus anterior had the highest EMG amplitude during PU plus and incline PU. The greatest global EMG amplitude occurred during unstable surface PU. Discussion: These results provide clinicians with a framework for prescribing PU to target specific muscles and scale exercise difficulty to facilitate rehabilitation outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.340 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShoulder & ElbowSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207