MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001060996 · doi:10.1055/s-2007-964857

Freewheel Exercise Training Modifies Pro- and Anti-Apoptotic Protein Expression in Mouse Splenic Lymphocytes

2007· article· en· W2001060996 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurie Hoffman‐Goetz, Paul A. Spagnuolo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSplenocyteApoptosisMedicineInternal medicineSpleenEndocrinologyLymphocytePhysical exerciseImmunologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of voluntary training in mice on the expression of apoptotic proteins in splenic lymphocytes following acute exercise. Thirty-three mice were randomized to four treatments: 1) control group (no training and no acute exercise), 2) training, no acute exercise, 3) no training, acute exercise and 4) training, acute exercise. Mice were sacrificed immediately after acute exercise. Western immunoblotting was used to detect apoptosis in splenic lymphocytes for concentrations of anti- (Bcl-2) and pro-apoptotic (caspase 3) proteins. Plasma corticosterone was used as an index of exercise stress. Trained mice not given acute exercise challenge had elevated Bcl-2 (p < 0.05) and lower caspase 3 (p < 0.05) levels relative to control mice. Following the acute exercise challenge, however, trained and untrained mice did not differ in the concentrations of these proteins in splenocytes. Thus, freewheel exercise training in mice reduces splenic lymphocyte apoptosis when tissue samples are obtained at rest but not after acute exercise.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207