MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interleukin‐6 and its mRNA responses in exercise and recovery: relationship to muscle glycogen

2007· article· en· W1579174159 on OpenAlexafffund
Jenny E. Gusba, Rhonda J. Wilson, Deborah Robinson, Terry E. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGlycogenInternal medicineEndocrinologyCarbohydrateBiologyChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increases in circulating interleukin-6 (IL-6) during exhaustive exercise have been suggested to be related to declining muscle glycogen. We addressed two hypotheses: (a) exhaustive exercise on two occasions will result in similar decreases in glycogen and increases in circulating IL-6 and its muscle mRNA; (b) increasing the rate of glycogen restoration via high-carbohydrate feeding in recovery will be associated with more rapid declines in muscle mRNA and circulating IL-6. Ten male subjects (22.6+/-0.8 year) cycled to exhaustion (65% VO(2 max)) on two occasions (117.8+/-2.9 min). Carbohydrate (1 g/kg bw) or water was ingested at exhaustion, 60, 120, 180, and 240 min post-exercise. Muscle biopsies were taken at rest, exhaustion, 30, 60, 120 and 300 min of recovery. Exercise resulted in a 14.5-fold increase (P<0.05) in IL-6 mRNA, 14.4-fold increase (P<0.05) in circulating IL-6, and a 80% decrease (P<0.05) in muscle glycogen from rest. The decline in glycogen was not correlated with the increase in IL-6 or IL-6 mRNA. During recovery, circulating IL-6 and its muscle mRNA decreased similarly in both trials; however, glycogen increased 150% (P<0.05) and 40% in the carbohydrate and water trials, respectively. Therefore, the declining IL-6 mRNA and IL-6 plasma concentrations during recovery were not related to carbohydrate availability or changes in glycogen.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207