ArticleExercise, sport & movement2026
Linear Extrapolation and Extended Field-of-View Methods of Biceps Femoris Long Head Regional Architecture.
Article in Exercise, sport & movement, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: This study compared extended field-of-view (EFOV) and traditional field-of-view (TFOV) methods for deriving fascicle length (FL), pennation angle (PA), and muscle thickness (MT) at proximal, mid-belly, and distal regions of the biceps femoris long head muscle. Methods: Ultrasound images were obtained from 32 healthy participants (15 females and 17 males) using both EFOV and TFOV imaging techniques. FL was directly measured in EFOV images and derived from three separate linear extrapolation (LE) methods (termed equations A, B, and C) in TFOV images. PA and MT were also measured. Results: FL measured with EFOV was significantly shorter at the mid-belly and distal regions ( Conclusion: Agreement between EFOV and TFOV FL measurements depended upon both the muscle region and LE equation used. These differences are likely due to architectural variations along the biceps femoris long head and inherent geometric assumptions in LE methods. Care should be used when choosing measurement methods for muscle architecture. Our findings suggest researchers and clinicians without access to EFOV should use equation A with caution, since it has the least geometric constraints among LE methods when estimating nonvisible portions of the fascicle.
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.