MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002000946 · doi:10.1002/mus.10457

Caffeine increases spinal excitability in humans

2003· article· en· W2002000946 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Walton, Jayne M. Kalmar, E. Cafarelli

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaffeineH-reflexReflexAnesthesiaMedicineExcitatory postsynaptic potentialPlaceboElectrophysiologyElectromyographyNeurosciencePsychologyEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hoffman reflex (H reflex) has long been established as a measure of spinal excitability. Caffeine is one of the most widely consumed drugs in the world. Because it is known to increase excitatory neurotransmission, we hypothesized that caffeine would increase spinal excitability and thus alter the H reflex by increasing its amplitude. Seven subjects each attended the laboratory on 2 days. Caffeine (6 mg/kg) was administered on one day and a placebo was administered on the other. The tibial nerve was stimulated at incremental intensities to create an H-reflex recruitment curve prior to capsule administration (pretest) and 1 h later (posttest) on each day. The slope of H-reflex recruitment curve normalized to that of the M wave (H(slp)/M(slp)) was compared (pretest to posttest). Caffeine increased spinal excitability 43 +/- 17% (P < 0.05). Thus, caffeine may be used to safely increase spinal excitability in electrophysiological studies of the human neuromuscular system. Our results also suggest that caffeine intake should be controlled when the H reflex is used in diagnostic and experimental situations.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations93
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207