Perfil de força muscular isométrica em atletas de rugby em cadeira de rodas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In 1977, in the city of Winnipeg in Canada, Wheelchair Rugby was created (WR). In Brazil, the sport began in 2005 in Rio de Janeiro (RJ). The Brazilian team with the most national titles (4 titles) appears in 2008, in Campinas-SP. In this way, we can see that the mode of WR is recent, allowing several studies in this area. In order to increase the range of knowledge in this sport, the current study aimed to analyze the muscular strength levels in WR athletes. Methods: This is characterized as descriptive research and presents a crosssectional design. The sample consisted of 10 athletes with spinal cord injury at cervical level (tetraplegic), male and mean age was 31.1 5.06 years. The athletes were recruited by Rugby team in the Motor Activity Project Wheelchair and Sport Adapted from the State University of Campinas (ADEACAMP / UNICAMP). To analyze the muscular strength levels, we used the Handheld Dynamometer (HHD; MTAs F-1; ANIMA, Tokyo, Japan) and for evaluation of muscle thickness was used Ultrasound (US) of SonoSite (HDI 3000, ATL, Bothell, Washington, USA) using 7.3 MHz linear-array probe. Results: For maximum isometric muscle strength in Rigth Shoulder Flexion (RSF) the mean and standard deviation, respectively were 322.80 119.89 (N) to Left Shoulder Flexion (LSF) were 319.60 127.58 (N) for Rigth Shoulder Extension (RSE) were 129.80 54.68 for Left Shoulder Extension (LSE) 139.30 67.48 (N), to Right Elbow Flexion (REF) were 189.20 37.85 (N), to Left Elbow flexion (LEF) were 192.30 35.56 (N) to Right Elbow Extension (REE) were 72.30 72.79 (N) and Left Elbow Extension (LEE) were 69.40 66.84 (N). For muscle thickness results will also be presented as mean and standard deviation, respectively, for the Rigth Elbow Flexion (REF) were 3.68 0:36 (cm), for the Left Elbow Flexion (LEF) were 3.78 0:36 (cm ) for Rigth Elbow Extension (REE) were 2:04 0:57 (cm) and Left Elbow Extension (LEE) were 2:06 0:58 (cm). Conclusion: This study show that such assessments are important for the coaching staff and athletes of WR, given that the major players of the ADEACAMP team are those who presented better results of maximal isometric force, so, muscle strength variable is linked to performance in WR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".