Typical <i>m. triceps surae</i> morphology and architecture measurement from 0 to 18 years: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review was to report on the imaging modalities used to assess morphological and architectural properties of the m. triceps surae muscle in typically developing children, and the available reliability analyses. Scopus and MEDLINE (Pubmed) were searched systematically for all original articles published up to September 2020 measuring morphological and architectural properties of the m. triceps surae in typically developing children (18 years or under). Thirty eligible studies were included in this analysis, measuring fibre bundle length (FBL) (n = 11), pennation angle (PA) (n = 10), muscle volume (MV) (n = 16) and physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) (n = 4). Three primary imaging modalities were utilised to assess these architectural parameters in vivo: two-dimensional ultrasound (2DUS; n = 12), three-dimensional ultrasound (3DUS; n = 9) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; n = 6). The mean age of participants ranged from 1.4 years to 18 years old. There was an apparent increase in m. gastrocnemius medialis MV and pCSA with age; however, no trend was evident with FBL or PA. Analysis of correlations of muscle variables with age was limited by a lack of longitudinal data and methodological variations between studies affecting outcomes. Only five studies evaluated the reliability of the methods. Imaging methodologies such as MRI and US may provide valuable insight into the development of skeletal muscle from childhood to adulthood; however, variations in methodological approaches can significantly influence outcomes. Researchers wishing to develop a model of typical muscle development should carry out longitudinal architectural assessment of all muscles comprising the m. triceps surae utilising a consistent approach that minimises confounding errors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".