Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor: We read with interest the commentary on our article “Hand-Held Dynamometry Isometric Torque Reference Values for Children and Adolescents.”1 provided by Drs Masaracchia and Comet.2 They make a good point regarding how our reference values might be used. We would suggest, however, that muscle strength is not unique in being “only one piece of the puzzle.” Modern clinical reasoning theory in physical therapy suggests that outcome measure data in general should be treated as such.3 That is, context and various sources of information about the client or patient are required for meaningful clinical decision making. As well, although we agree with the suggestion of Drs Masaracchia and Comet that clinicians use a standardized protocol for muscle strength testing, we would also like to point out that our study did not “develop a mechanism for objectively measuring muscle strength in children” as stated by the authors. The validation of the measurement protocol was part of a previous study.4 Our main objective for the present study was to “establish hand-held dynamometry maximal isometric muscle torque reference values for children and adolescents who are developing typically.”1 We would also like to add that the optimal use of the reference values published in our recent study1 implies that the clinician has had sufficient training and practice to apply the protocol correctly and consistently. This training should be seen as an integral component of employing a standardized muscle strength testing protocol. Luc J. Hébert, PT, PhD, CD Désirée Maltais, PT, PhD CIRRIS-IRDPQ, Quebec, Canada
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".