Plantar flexor strength and size decrease following single‐leg disuse in uninjured adults: A meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Plantar flexors play a pivotal role in human locomotion and balance. Several original research studies and systematic reviews have characterised the impact of single-leg disuse on plantar flexor strength and size. However, no meta-analysis has quantified the effects of single-leg disuse on changes in plantar flexor strength and size in uninjured adults. AIM: To quantify changes in plantar flexor strength and size in response to single-leg disuse. METHODS: Data were extracted from 19 studies captured in our previous systematic review on studies that employed a unilateral lower limb immobilisation model (cast or brace) and were published up to January 30, 2022. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on original research studies reporting measures of plantar flexor strength (isometric, isokinetic, or repetition maximum) and size (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) in uninjured adults. RESULTS: = -0.71 [95% confidence interval: -0.93, -0.48], p < 0.001, 7-28 days, N = 16 studies, n = 121 participants including ≥13 females, ages 19-29) and plantar flexor size (-0.33 [-0.50, -0.15], p < 0.001, 14-35 days, N = 6, n = 49, 10 females, ages 22-27) across all durations of disuse. DISCUSSION: Single-leg disuse decreases plantar flexor strength and size in uninjured adults. This work adds to recent meta-analytic findings demonstrating the declines in knee extensors strength and size following single-leg disuse. The paucity of female and participants >30 years old in the single-leg disuse literature examining plantar flexors represents a priority of future work.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".