MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does The Countermovement Jump Accurately Assess Lower-limb Neuromuscular Fatigue?

2022· article· en· W4294796416 on OpenAlexaff
Owen Lindsay, Jared R. Fletcher

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcentricCyclingMedicineRepeated measures designPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAthletesJumpMuscle fatiguePhysical therapyAnalysis of varianceCardiologyMathematicsInternal medicineElectromyographyPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuromuscular fatigue is monitored in athletes following intense exercise to inform future training prescription and to improve performance. Temporal analysis of the countermovement jump (CMJ) is frequently used to assess fatigue in athletes but is infrequently compared directly to low-frequency fatigue (LFF), a long-lasting fatigue typically assessed in the laboratory. LFF may be present in athletes. PURPOSE: To determine the time-course of changes in CMJ and lower limb LFF following an exhaustive cycling test and the relationship between LFF and temporal CMJ variables. METHODS: LFF and CMJ were assessed in seven active adults (24±2 years, 78±14 kg) prior to and following (0, 8, 15, 30, 60 mins and 24 and 48 hours) an incremental cycling test to exhaustion. Cycling began at 100 W and increased 25 W every 2 min until exhaustion. Temporal analysis of CMJ for peak power (PP), jump height (JH), and concentric contraction duration (CCD) were calculated from bilateral force plates. Low-frequency (10 Hz) force (F10) was elicited from transcutaneous femoral nerve stimulation prior to a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). LFF was quantified as the F10:MVC ratio. The order of CMJ or LFF was randomized across time points. Changes in LFF and CMJ variables were assessed from two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (measure x time). RESULTS: Maximal aerobic power was 234±67 W (96±4% HRmax). A significant measure x time interaction (p<0.0001) and significant main effects of time (p=0.05) and method (p=0.02) were found. Compared to baseline, significant reductions in LFF (i.e., greater fatigue) were seen at 0-, 8-, 15- and 30-mins post-exercise (all p<0.02). No significant changes in any of the CMJ variables were observed post-exercise (p = 1.0). Furthermore, changes in LFF during exercise recovery was not correlated to changes in any of CMJ variables (r2<0.04, p>0.20), whereas all CMJ variables were significantly correlated with each other (0.22<r2<0.42, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: These results show that following exhaustive exercise, LFF persists for at least 30 mins whereas no change in CMJ performance variables were seen. These results call into question the practical utility of interpreting neuromuscular fatigue in athletes using the CMJ, even within 30 minutes of exhaustive exercise.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→