MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000430768 · doi:10.1002/mus.20078

Resistance training exercise and creatine in patients with Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease

2004· article· en· W2000430768 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Chetlin, Laurie Gutmann, Mark A. Tarnopolsky, Irma Ullrich, Rachel Yeater

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHereditary Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreatineCreatine MonohydrateResistance trainingPlaceboMedicineInternal medicineStrength trainingPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistance exercise and creatine supplementation independently improve strength and function in patients with certain neuromuscular diseases. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of resistance training with and without creatine supplementation on muscle, strength, and function in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease. Twenty patients with CMT consumed 5 g/day creatine or placebo while participating in resistance training for 12 weeks. Energy metabolites, muscle fiber type and size, strength, and timed activities of daily living were measured before and after training. There were no differences between creatine or placebo groups for any outcome. For the groups combined, exercise training increased type I muscle fiber diameter (48.2 +/- 14.2 microm vs. 55.4 +/- 14.8 microm), strength, and activities of daily living (ADL) times. Thus, patients respond to resistance training with muscle fiber adaptations, and improvements in strength and function. Creatine was not beneficial.

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: Non-randomized trial · 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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations59
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicHereditary Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207