Precision Errors and Monitoring Time Interval in Pediatric Muscle Imaging and Neuromuscular Performance Assessment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine precision errors and monitoring time intervals in imaged muscle properties and neuromuscular performance, and to explore growth-related factors associated with precision errors in children. METHODS: We included 35 children (mean age 10.5yrs) in the precision study cohort and 40 children (10.7yrs) in the follow-up study cohort. We assessed forearm and lower leg muscle properties (area, density) with peripheral quantitative computed tomography. We measured neuromuscular performance via maximal pushup, grip force, countermovement and standing long jump force, power, and impulse along with long jump length. We calculated precision errors (root-mean-squared coefficient of variation) from the precision cohort and monitoring time intervals using annual changes from the follow-up cohort. We explored associations between precision errors (coefficient of variation) and maturity, time interval (between repeated measures), and anthropometric changes using Spearman's rank correlation (p<0.05). RESULTS: Muscle measures exhibited precision errors of 1.3-14%. Monitoring time intervals were 1-2.6yrs, except muscle density (>43yrs). We identified only one association between precision errors and maturity (maximal pushup force: rho=-0.349; p=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging muscle properties and neuromuscular performance measures had precision errors of 1-14% and appeared suitable for follow-up on ~2yr scales (except muscle density). Maximal pushup force appeared more repeatable in mature children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".