Determinants Affecting Physical Activity Levels In Animal Models <sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight control is dependent on energy balance. Reduced energy expenditure (EE) associated with decreased physical activity is suggested to be a major underlying cause in the increasing prevalence of weight gain and obesity. Therefore, a better understanding of the biological determinants involved in the regulation of physical activity is essential. To facilitate interpretation in humans, it is helpful to consider the evidence from animal studies. This review focuses on animal studies examining the biological determinants influencing activity and potential implications to human. It appears that physical activity is influenced by a number of parameters. However, regardless of the parameter involved, body weight appears to play an underlying role in the regulation of activity. Furthermore, the regulation of activity associated with body weight appears to occur only after the animal achieves a critical weight. This suggests that activity levels are a consequence rather than a contributor to weight control. However, the existence of an inverse weight-activity relationship remains inconclusive. Confounding the results are the multifactorial nature of physical activity and the lack of appropriate measuring devices. Furthermore, many determinants of body weight are closely interlocked, making it difficult to determine whether a single, combination, or interaction of factors is important for the regulation of activity. For example, diet-induced obesity, aging, lesions to the ventral medial hypothalamus, and genetics all produce hypoactivity. Providing a better understanding of the biological determinants involved in the regulation of activity has important implications for the development of strategies for the prevention of weight gain leading to obesity and subsequent morbidity and mortality in the human population.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".