ArticleClinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)2026
Muscle architecture predicts lower extremity power generation during a power leg press test in individuals with cerebral palsy.
Article in Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this cross-sectional study was to examine relationships between power and muscle architecture in individuals with cerebral palsy (CP).
methodsParticipants (n = 26; 19.3 ± 7.8 years; range 10-37 years; Gross Motor Function Classification System level I-III) performed 5 power leg presses with the concentric performed at a high velocity. Peak Power was calculated as the highest power value across the 5 presses. Architectural outcomes were muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and fascicle length of the vastus lateralis, medial gastrocnemius, and rectus femoris. Simple linear and multiple regression were used to examine associations between architecture and Peak Power.
findingsPeak Power was positively associated with all architectural variables (p < 0.05) except for rectus femoris fascicle length (p = 0.058). Rectus femoris thickness alone explained the greatest variance in Peak Power (50.8%). Rectus femoris and medial gastrocnemius cross-sectional area combined with fascicle length of each muscle explained between 68.5%-69.2% of the variance in Peak Power (p < 0.001). Rectus femoris cross-sectional area, age, and Gross Motor Function level together explained 71.6% of the variance in Peak Power (p < 0.001).
interpretationMuscle architecture is a significant predictor of lower extremity muscle power in individuals with CP. Muscle size was a stronger predictor of power than fascicle length; however, combining these variables substantially increased model strength, explaining 69% of the variance in power. The addition of age and Gross Motor Function level provided additional explanatory power. These findings highlight the key role of muscle architecture in muscle performance in individuals with CP.
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.