ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring the torque- velocity relationship in postmenopausal women: Analyzing the influence of data processing.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe main aims of this study were to compare the goodness of fit and derived parameters of linear and non-linear models for fitting the torque-velocity (TV) relationship in postmenopausal women, and to examine the influence of data processing on the results obtained.
methodsSixteen physically active postmenopausal women completed the experiment. Knee extensor (KE) and elbow flexor (EF) muscle strength was evaluated in the dominant limb using an isokinetic dynamometer. Isometric and isokinetic tests were conducted at 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, and 300°/s. Peak torque and the corresponding joint angles were recorded for each test. TV data were fitted using linear, quadratic polynomial (PM), and Hill's (HM) regression models. TV relationships were analyzed using both actual data (i.e., the velocity achieved and its associated torque; TVA) and target data (i.e., the velocity preset on the dynamometer and the torque reported; TVT). TV parameters derived from each model and their goodness of fit were calculated for both TVA and TVT relationships.
resultsThe goodness of fit and the estimated TV parameters derived from the regression models differed significantly between TVA and TVT for both KE and EF (P < 0.05). For TVA, the models with the best fit were HM for KE and PM for EF. However, HM yielded unrealistically high theoretical maximum velocity values (6764.69 ± 11619.09°/s) for KE. Parameter estimates for TVA differed significantly between models (P < 0.001).
conclusionCaution is advised when performing isokinetic assessments at high velocities in middle-aged women. The obtained data should be carefully examined, as TVA and TVT should not be used interchangeably. The choice of model can influence the estimated parameters. We recommend using quadratic polynomial models to fit TV data for both KE and EF in postmenopausal women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.