MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1997846007 · doi:10.1139/h06-074

Sprint training reduces urinary purine loss following intense exercise in humans

2006· article· en· W1997846007 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christos G. Stathis, Michael Carey, Alan Hayes, Andrew Garnham, Rodney J. Snow

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintHypoxanthineInosinePurineUric acidCycle ergometerCreatineExcretionBicycle ergometerChemistryUrinary systemInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineAnimal sciencePhysical therapyHeart rateBiochemistryBiologyAdenosineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of sprint training on endogenous urinary purine loss was examined in 7 active male subjects (age, 23.1 +/- 1.8 y; body mass, 76.1 +/- 3.1 kg; VO2 peak, 56.3 +/- 4.0 mL.kg-1.min-1). Each subject performed a 30 s sprint performance test (PT), before and after 7 d of sprint training. Training consisted of 15 sprints, each lasting 10 s, on an air-braked cycle ergometer performed twice each day. A rest period of 50 s separated each sprint during training. Sprint training resulted in a 20% higher muscle ATP immediately after PT, a lower IMP (57% and 89%, immediately after and 10 min after PT, respectively), and inosine accumulation (53% and 56%, immediately after and 10 min after the PT, respectively). Sprint training also attenuated the exercise-induced increases in plasma inosine, hypoxanthine (Hx), and uric acid during the first 120 min of recovery and reduced the total urinary excretion of purines (inosine + Hx + uric acid) in the 24 h recovery period following intense exercise. These results show that intermittent sprint training reduces the total urinary purine excretion after a 30 s sprint bout.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→