Lower Extremity Asymmetry Values Derived From Multiple Strength Testing Modes Are Associated With Perceived Functional Capabilities Among University Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Muscle strength asymmetry and athlete introspective measures are associated with musculoskeletal (MSK) sport injury and reinjury. However, the interrelationship between mechanical and subjective measures of concentric and eccentric limb function needs further exploration. This includes investigating if an athlete’s perception of their overall MSK function influences limb asymmetry across different testing modalities. Objectives: To (i) explore the interrelationship between mechanical and subjective measures of lower limb function in university athletes and (ii) compare the consistency in interlimb strength asymmetries across different strength tests in groups of athletes with good, fair, and poor perceived limb function. Methods: University athletes (n = 175; n = 87 females) from six sports completed four tests of muscle strength, power, and plyometric function along with an assessment of perceived limb function using the Sport Fitness Index (SFI). Participants were categorized into high (GOODSFI), fair (FAIRSFI), and poor (POORSFI) perceived overall MSK function (perceived function) groups. Strength asymmetry indexes evaluated interlimb differences in concentric and eccentric maximal strength, countermovement jump (CMJ) impulse, unilateral CMJ height, and reactive strength index in unilateral repeat hop testing. Cumulative link mixed‐effects models assessed the relationship between strength asymmetries and perceived limb function. Results: The POORSFI group showed increased asymmetry in concentric strength testing (p = 0.022), more consistent interlimb asymmetries (p < 0.001), and reduced overall muscle strength compared to the GOODSFI group. Conclusion: Higher interlimb asymmetry in maximal concentric strength measures along with reduced muscle strength was found in the POORSFI group compared to the GOODSFI group. The POORSFI group also showed greater consistency in muscle strength asymmetry derived across different tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".