MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peer Review #3 of "The effects of isometric hand grip force on wrist kinematics and forearm muscle activity during radial and ulnar wrist joint perturbations (v0.2)"

2022· peer-review· en· W4293066375 on OpenAlexaff
Kailynn Mannella, Garrick N. Forman, Maddalena Mugnosso, Jacopo Zenzeri, Michael Wr, Holmes Corresp, Michael W.R. Holmes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWristForearmIsometric exerciseKinematicsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationJoint (building)AnatomyOrthodonticsPhysicsPhysical therapyEngineeringStructural engineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this work was to investigate forearm muscle activity and wrist angular displacement during radial and ulnar wrist perturbations across various isometric hand grip demands.Surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded from eight muscles of the upper extremity.A robotic device delivered perturbations to the hand in the radial and ulnar directions across 4 pre perturbation grip magnitudes.Angular displacement and time to peak displacement following perturbations were evaluated.Muscle activity was evaluated pre and post perturbation.Results showed an inverse relationship between grip force and angular displacement (p ≤ 0.001).Time to peak displacement decreased as grip force increased (p ≤ 0.001).There was an increase in muscle activity with higher grip forces across all muscles both pre-and post-perturbation (p ≤ 0.001) and a greater average muscle activity in ulnar as compared to radial deviation (p = 0.02).This work contributes to the wrist joint stiffness literature by relating wrist angular displacement to grip demands during novel radial/ulnar perturbations and provides insight into neuromuscular control strategies.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.059

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→