Cross‐education attenuates muscle weakness and facilitates strength recovery after orthopedic immobilization in females: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study consists of a two-phase intervention to examine the effectiveness of unilateral resistance training to mitigate the negative consequences of immobilization and expedite the restoration of muscle strength and size following a period of retraining. Ten females were randomized to a unilateral training (TRAIN, n = 6) or control (CON, n = 4) group. During Phase 1, all participants wore an arm sling for a total of 4 weeks on their non-dominant arm. This phase required the TRAIN group to perform unilateral resistance training with the non-immobilized arm while the CON group did not. Phase 2 commenced thereafter and consisted of 4 weeks of bilateral resistance training for both groups. Outcome measures of neuromuscular function and muscle size were assessed at baseline and after each phase, with neuromuscular function quantified by maximal dynamic and isometric strength alongside electromyographic responses and muscle size measured using ultrasonography and regional lean mass via DEXA. Unilateral training of the non-immobilized arm during Phase 1 attenuated dynamic (p < 0.05; g > 1.2), but not isometric (p > 0.40; g < 0.095), strength loss following immobilization and showed large effects for improving the recovery of strength after retraining. Similarly, the imaging data show the relative changes in muscle size and regional lean mass of the non-dominant arm favor TRAIN. Although the small sample prevents definitive conclusions, our study suggests resistance training of the non-immobilized arm attenuates muscle weakness and atrophy for the contralateral, immobilized arm during immobilization and facilitates their recovery following retraining.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".