Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26656741›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Mathematical Models of Localized Muscle Fatigue: Sensitivity Analysis and Assessment of Two Occupationally-Relevant Models.

Ehsan Rashedi, Maury A Nussbaum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ehsan RashediDepartment of Industrial and System Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America.
Maury A NussbaumDepartment of Industrial and System Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Muscle fatigue models (MFM) have broad potential application if they can accurately predict muscle capacity and/or endurance time during the execution of diverse tasks. As an initial step toward facilitating improved MFMs, we assessed the sensitivity of selected existing models to their inherent parameters, specifically that model the fatigue and recovery processes, and the accuracy of model predictions. These evaluations were completed for both prolonged and intermittent isometric contractions, and were based on model predictions of endurance times. Based on a recent review of the literature, four MFMs were initially chosen, from which a preliminary assessment led to two of these being considered for more comprehensive evaluation. Both models had a higher sensitivity to their fatigue parameter. Predictions of both models were also more sensitive to the alteration of their parameters in conditions involving lower to moderate levels of effort, though such conditions may be of most practical, contemporary interest or relevance. Although both models yielded accurate predictions of endurance times during prolonged contractions, their predictive ability was inferior for more complex (intermittent) conditions. When optimizing model parameters for different loading conditions, the recovery parameter showed considerably larger variability, which might be related to the inability of these MFMs in simulating the recovery process under different loading conditions. It is argued that such models may benefit in future work from improving their representation of recovery process, particularly how this process differs across loading conditions.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalHumansIsometric ContractionMuscle FatigueMuscle, SkeletalPhysical EnduranceTask Performance and Analysis

Identifiers

PMID26656741
PMCPMC4681880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.