Age, Sex, and Training Specific Effects on Cross-Education Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An extensive number of publications have examined cross-education effects with adults, primarily investigating contralateral homologous (same) muscles. There are far fewer investigations on cross-education effects on contralateral heterologous (different) muscles and age (youth vs adult) and no studies investigating sex differences. Hence, the objective was to compare cross-education in female and male youth and young adults to contralateral homologous (chest press [CP], elbow flexors and extensors, handgrip isometric strength, and shot put) and heterologous (leg press, knee extension isometric strength, and countermovement jump) muscles. Twenty-eight female adults, 28 female youth, 28 male adults, and 28 male youth (total: 112) were examined before and after an 8-week (3 sessions/wk) unilateral, dominant arm, CP training program. Unilateral testing assessed dominant and nondominant leg press and CP 1-repetition maximum, knee extensors, elbow extensors, elbow flexors, and handgrip maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) strength, as well as shot put distance and countermovement jump height. Unilateral CP training induced training specific (CP 1-repetition maximum) and nonspecific (elbow extensors, elbow flexors, handgrip MVIC force, and shot put distance) improvements (P < .04, η2: .45-.85) but no significant lower body improvements. There was evidence for testing limb specificity as the dominant arm provided significantly (P < .021, η2: .17-.75) greater training gains than the nondominant arm. Youth's training adaptations exceeded with unilateral CP 1-repetition maximum, elbow extensors MVIC force, and shot put distance (P < .049, η2: .14-.49). No sex main effect differences were apparent. In conclusion, cross-education was training specific (greatest gains with upper body and dominant limbs) with greater benefits for youth and generally no sex differences with the exception of elbow extensors MVIC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".