Comparison of unilateral and bilateral strength ratio, strength, and knee proprioception in older male fallers and non-fallers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asymmetry of lower limb muscle strength and knee proprioception have been linked with risk of falling among elderly with and without history of falling. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the comparison of hamstrings to quadriceps strength ratio (CSR) and bilateral knee strength ratio, hamstrings and quadriceps muscles' strength and knee proprioception in elderly male fallers and non-fallers. METHODS: Sixty older adults, 65 years and older were recruited into faller (fell twice in the last six months) and non-faller groups. Then, the knee extension and flexion strength and proprioception at 45° knee flexion for the dominant leg (DL) and non-dominant legs (NDL) were measured with a Biodex Isokinetic Dynamometer. RESULTS: The strength of quadriceps and hamstring muscles showed significantly higher values in DL by 5.4 %, 9.2 % and NDL by 11.7 %, 15.5 % in the non-faller compared to the faller (p < 0.05). Significantly greater bilateral asymmetry (>10 % difference) was observed with the quadriceps (p = 0.014, -7.9 %, ES = 0.76) and hamstrings (p < 0.001, -18.4 %, ES = 1.5) as well as reduced CSR (<72 %) by 7.6 % in DL (ES = 0.64) and 11.3 % in NDL (ES = 0.81) with fallers versus non-fallers. Significantly less knee proprioception was found with the DL by -1.5 % (ES = 1.15) and NDL (ES = 1.50) by -2.1 % (p < 0.001) in non-faller compared to faller. CONCLUSION: It concluded that non-fallers have better strength symmetry, bilateral and unilateral knee strength ratios as well as more sensitive knee proprioception than fallers. It is suggestive that older adult fallers may need to improve bilateral knee strength symmetry and proprioception to prevent the risk of falling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".