Effect of stimulation frequency on force, net power output, and fatigue in mouse soleus muscle in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of electrical stimulation frequency on force, work loop power output, and fatigue of mouse soleus muscle were investigated in vitro at 35 degrees C. Increasing stimulation frequency did not significantly affect maximal isometric tetanic stress (overall mean +/- SD, 205 +/- 16.6 kN.m-2 between 70 and 160 Hz) but did significantly increase the rate of force generation. The maximal net power output during work loops significantly increased with stimulation frequency: 18.2 +/- 3.7, 22.5 +/- 3.3, 26.8 +/- 3.7, and 28.6 +/- 3.4 W.kg(-1) at 70, 100, 130, and 160 Hz, respectively. The stimulation frequency that was used affected the pattern of fatigue observed during work loop studies. At stimulation frequencies of 100 and 130 Hz, there were periods of mean net negative work during the fatigue tests due to a slowing of relaxation rate. In contrast, mean net work remained positive throughout the fatigue test when stimulation frequencies of 70 and 160 Hz were used. The highest cumulative work during the fatigue test was performed at 70 and 160 Hz, followed by 130 Hz, then 100 Hz. Therefore, stimulation frequency affects power output and the pattern of fatigue in mouse soleus muscle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".