MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4360825583 · doi:10.1117/12.2669656

Impacts of muscle strength and flexibility on joints

2023· article· en· W4360825583 on OpenAlexaff
Sihan Huang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Muscle strengthRange of motionJoint (building)Muscle stiffnessJoint stiffnessStiffnessJoint stabilityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMaterials scienceMedicineStructural engineeringPhysical therapyEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Joints are stabilized by ligaments and initiated by muscle tendons. People’s joint health is correlated with muscle performance. This study focuses on muscle performance, including strength and flexibility, affects joint health and the risk of injury, and summarizes and discusses multiple experiments and case studies on different joints. Muscles aid in the control and movement of joints. Muscle strength would increase, resulting in greater stability and less imbalance force in the joints. Furthermore, stronger muscle strength benefits injury recovery and slows injury progression. Meanwhile, greater muscle flexibility can result in greater muscle strength and range of motion. The length of muscle tendons increases as joint flexibility increases, providing more range of motion in the joints and preventing muscles from fatiguing. Joint stiffness and pain are reduced as the range of motion of the joints increases. Therefore, muscle strength or flexibility can influence joint health and the risk of injuries.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→