Estimating Muscle Power of the Lower Limbs through the 5-Sit-to-Stand Test: A Comparison of Field vs. Laboratory Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 5-Sit-to-stand test (5STS) is used for lower limb muscle power (MP) determination in field/clinical setting. From the time taken to perform five standing movements and three partially verified assumptions (vertical displacement, mean concentric time, and mean force), MP is estimated as the body’s vertical velocity x force. By comparison with a gold standard, laboratory approach (motion capture system and force plate), we aimed to: (1) verify the assumptions; (2) assess the accuracy of the field-estimated MP (MPfield); (3) develop and validate an optimized estimation (MPfield-opt). In 63 older adults (67 ± 6 years), we compared: (i) estimated and measured assumptions (2-WAY RM ANOVA), (ii) MPfield and MPfield-opt with the reference/laboratory method (MPlab) (2-WAY RM ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), Bland-Altman analysis). There was a significant difference between estimated and measured assumptions (p < 0.001). Following the implementation of the optimized assumptions, MPfield-opt (205.1 ± 55.3 W) was not significantly different from Mlab (199.5 ± 57.9 W), with a high correlation (r = 0.86, p < 0.001) and a non-significant bias (5.64 W, p = 0.537). Provided that corrected assumptions are used, 5STS field test is confirmed a valid time- and cost-effective field method for the monitoring of lower limbs MP, a valuable index of health status in aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".