MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285098806 · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2022.03.003

Clinimetric Properties of the Applied Kinesiology Manual Muscle Test in Adults With and Without Pain: A Methodological Study

2022· article· en· W4285098806 on OpenAlexaff
Décio G. Oliveira, Gabriel Melo de Oliveira, Renata Noce Kirkwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chiropractic Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinesiologyMedicinePhysical therapyChiropracticPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTest (biology)Alternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the intra- and interexaminer reliability, concurrent validity, and responsiveness of the applied kinesiology manual muscle test (AK-MMT) to discriminate gluteus medius muscle strength and latency. A cross-sectional and methodological study was conducted in 38 participants using electromyography, electrogoniometry, and hand-held dynamometry to measure latency, angular displacement, and muscle force during the assessment of the gluteus medius by AK-MMT. Inter- and intrarater reliability of 2 examiners with different levels of experience were obtained using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Muscle force, latency, and joint angular displacement were compared between groups (facilitated vs inhibited). Latency and angular displacement also were compared within groups by using the Wilcoxon paired test. For the concurrent validity of the AK-MMT in classifying an inhibited muscle as weak, the receiver operating characteristic curve was conducted. Intra- and interexaminer reliability for the facilitated vs inhibited classifications based on AK-MMT presented good results, with intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.86. For the inhibited group, force and peak force were significantly lower and joint displacement significantly greater. The receiver operating characteristic curve showed an area under the curve of 0.743, demonstrating that the test has concurrent validity (P = .001) to discriminate muscle force. The Wilcoxon paired test showed a significant delay in latency of the inhibited gluteus medius group (0.10 s vs 0.18 s, P = .007) when compared with the facilitated one. In this study, we found good intra- and interexaminer reliability and concurrent validity for the AK-MMT to determine differences in gluteus medius muscle force. Although the paired data showed a different latency time between groups, the hypothesis of prolonged latency in muscles classified as inhibited by AK-MMT still needs further investigation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chiropractic MedicineSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207