Test-retest reliability of gastrocnemius medialis fascicle force-length relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fascicle force-length relationship is one major basic mechanical property of skeletal muscle , subsequently influencing movement mechanics. While force-length properties are increasingly described through ultrafast ultrasound imaging , their test-retest reliability remains unknown. Using ultrafast ultrasound, and electrically evoked contractions at various ankle angles, gastrocnemius medialis fascicle force-length relationship was assessed twice, few days apart, in sixteen participants. The test-retest reliability of the resulting fascicle force-length relationship key parameters — i.e. , maximal force (F max ), and optimal fascicle length (L 0 ) — was evaluated considering (i) all the trials obtained at each ankle joint and (ii) the mean of the two trials obtained at each tested angle. Considering all trials, L 0 indicated a ‘high’ test-retest reliability, with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of 0.89 and F max a ‘moderate’ reliability (ICC = 0.71), while when averaging the two trials L 0 reliability was ‘very-high’ (ICC = 0.91), and F max reliability ‘moderate’ (ICC = 0.73). All values of coefficient of variation and standard error of measurement were low, i.e., ≤7.7 % and ≤0.35 cm for L 0 and ≤3.4 N for F max , respectively. Higher absolute reliability was reported for L 0 than F max , with better reliability when averaging the two trials at each angle. All these parameters, in accordance with the limit of agreement, demonstrated that L 0 and F max test-retest reliability is acceptable, particularly when averaging multiple points obtained at a given angle. Interestingly, the shape of the fascicle force-length relationship is more variable. Therefore, L 0 and F max can be used to compare between days-effects following an intervention, while a comparison of fascicle operating lengths may require more precautions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".