Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Relevance of Sex Differences in Performance Fatigability

Open access
HUNTER, SANDRA K.·2016·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
DOI 10.1249/mss.0000000000000928
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Performance fatigability differs between men and women for a range of fatiguing tasks. Women are usually less fatigable than men, and this is most widely described for isometric fatiguing contractions and some dynamic tasks. The sex difference in fatigability is specific to the task demands so that one mechanism is not universal, including any sex differences in skeletal muscle physiology, muscle perfusion, and voluntary activation. However, there are substantial knowledge gaps about the task dependency of the sex differences in fatigability, the involved mechanisms, and the relevance to clinical populations and with advanced age. The knowledge gaps are in part due to the significant deficits in the number of women included in performance fatigability studies despite a gradual increase in the inclusion of women for the last 20 yr. Therefore, this review 1) provides a rationale for the limited knowledge about sex differences in performance fatigability, 2) summarizes the current knowledge on sex differences in fatigability and the potential mechanisms across a range of tasks, 3) highlights emerging areas of opportunity in clinical populations, and 4) suggests strategies to close the knowledge gap and understanding the relevance of sex differences in performance fatigability. The limited understanding about sex differences in fatigability in healthy and clinical populations presents as a field ripe with opportunity for high-impact studies. Such studies will inform on the limitations of men and women during athletic endeavors, ergonomic tasks, and daily activities. Because fatigability is required for effective neuromuscular adaptation, sex differences in fatigability studies will also inform on optimal strategies for training and rehabilitation in both men and women.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0000000000000928

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
HUNTER, S. K.
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2016-11
Volume
48
Issue
11
Pages
2247-2256
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1249/mss.0000000000000928
OpenAlex
W2326676506
Cited by
298
References
12
FWCI
8.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.