MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385851595 · doi:10.1242/bio.060023

Human <i>in vivo</i> medial gastrocnemius gear during active and passive muscle lengthening: effect of inconsistent methods and nomenclature on data interpretation

2023· article· en· W4385851595 on OpenAlexaff
Matheus D. Pinto, Kazunori Nosaka, James M. Wakeling, Anthony J. Blazevich

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersAustralasian Society for Human BiologyEdith Cowan UniversityAustralian Government
KeywordsBiologyNomenclatureInterpretation (philosophy)In vivoAnatomyInformation retrievalComputer scienceZoologyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Muscle gear' is calculated as the ratio of fascicle-to-muscle length change, strain, or velocity. Inconsistencies in nomenclature and definitions of gear exist across disciplines partly due to differences in fascicle [curved (Lf) versus linear (Lf,straight)] and muscle [whole-muscle belly (Lb) versus belly segment (Lb,segment)] length calculation methods. We tested whether these differences affect gear magnitude during passive and active muscle lengthening of human medial gastrocnemius of young men (n=13, 26.3±5.0 years) using an isokinetic dynamometer. Lb, Lb,segment, Lf and Lf,straight were measured from motion analysis and ultrasound imaging data. Downshifts in belly gear but not belly segment gear occurred with muscle lengthening only during active lengthening. Muscle gear was unaffected by fascicle length measurement method (P=0.18) but differed when calculated as changes in Lb or Lb,segment (P<0.01) in a length-dependent manner. Caution is therefore advised for the use and interpretation of different muscle gear calculation methods and nomenclatures in animal and human comparative physiology.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.366 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology OpenSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207