MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977016878 · doi:10.1139/y04-020

Satellite cell activation on fibers: modeling events in vivo — an invited review

2004· review· en· W1977016878 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Judy E. Anderson, Ashley C. Wozniak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell biologyNitric oxideMyocyteBiologyRegeneration (biology)SatelliteIn vivoCellNitric oxide synthaseSkeletal muscleNeuroscienceAnatomyEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of the events underlying satellite cell activation and the counterpart maintenance of quiescence is essential for planning therapies that will promote the growth and regeneration of skeletal muscle in healthy, disease and aging. By modeling those events of satellite cell activation in studies of single muscle fibers or muscles in culture, the roles of mechanical stretching and nitric oxide are becoming understood. Recent studies demonstrated that stretch-induced activation is very rapid and exhibits some features of satellite cell heterogeneity. As well, gene expression studies showed that expression of the c-met receptor gene rises rapidly after stretching muscles in culture compared to those without stretch. This change in gene expression during activation, and the maintenance of quiescence in both normal and dystrophic muscles are dependent on NO, as they are blocked by inhibition of nitric oxide synthase (NOS). Mechanical, contractile activity is the defining feature of muscle function. Therefore, ongoing studies of stretch effects in satellite cell activation and quiescence in quiescent fiber and muscle cultures provides appropriate models by which to explore the regulatory steps in muscle in vivo under many conditions related to disease, repair, rehabilitation, growth and the prevention or treatment of atrophy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207