MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3198265103 · doi:10.1101/2021.09.03.458912

Sex differences in central and peripheral fatigue induced by sustained isometric ankle plantar flexion

2021· preprint· en· W3198265103 on OpenAlexaff
Donguk Jo, Miriam Goubran, Martin Bilodeau

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseAnklePlantar flexionMedicinePeripheralMuscle fatiguePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePhysical therapyCardiologyElectromyographyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The main aim of this study was to determine sex differences in central and peripheral fatigue produced by a sustained isometric exercise of ankle plantar flexors in healthy young adults. Ten males and fourteen females performed a sustained isometric ankle exercise until task failure. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction torque (plantarflexion), voluntary activation level (using the twitch interpolation technique), and twitch contractile properties (twitch peak torque, twitch half relaxation time, and low frequency fatigue index) were measured before, immediately after, and throughout a recovery period (1, 2, 5, and 10 min) following the exercise protocol in order to characterize neuromuscular fatigue. Fatigue had a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05) on all dependent variables. Other than for the maximal voluntary contraction torque, where males showed a greater fatigue-related decrease than females, males and females showed generally similar changes with fatigue. Altogether, our findings indicate no major differences in central or peripheral fatigue mechanisms between males and females to explain a somewhat greater fatigability in males.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→