Value-Added: Importance of Incorporating Menstrual Cycle Phases to Clarify Sex-Related Differences in Force Steadiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim This study aimed to determine whether female elbow flexion force steadiness varies across the menses, follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle. Methods To control for repeated testing effects unrelated to hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle, a comparison group of males completed the same protocol over three equally spaced testing sessions to the females. Maximal voluntary contractions and force steadiness were assessed in the neutral and pronated forearm positions. Elbow flexion force tracking tasks were performed at 2.5, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 75% maximal voluntary contraction in both forearm positions, and force steadiness was quantified as the coefficient of variation of force. Results Males were stronger than females (p<0.001), and maximal voluntary contractions did not differ between menstrual phases (p>0.14) or between days in males (p>0.56) in both forearm positions. There was no difference in coefficient of variation of force across sessions for the males (p<0.36). The coefficient of variation of force for all submaximal forces was significantly greater during the luteal phase compared to menses (Neutral p=0.02; Pronated p<0.05) but not the follicular phase (Neutral p=0.71; Pronated p=0.10). The coefficient of variation of force during the luteal phase in females was higher than males in both positions (p<0.02). Conclusion These findings support previous observations that females are less steady than males for isometric steady contractions; however, this study identifies luteal specific phase effects. This underscores the importance of accounting for menstrual cycle phase when conducting sex-related comparisons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".