MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

REPRESSION OF INFLAMMATION IN EXERCISE-INDUCED MUSCLE DAMAGE. ARE WE AIMING AT AN ENEMY?

2003· article· en· W2006501230 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît M. Lapointe, C H. C t

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflammationEccentricMuscle damagePsychological repressionMedicineSkeletal muscleInternal medicinePharmacologyEndocrinologyChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD) triggers an inflammatory response (IR). In the sport arena, this IR is seen as a fire that must be extinguished and the use of non-steroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) seems logical. In line with this, the catabolic phase of inflammation in EIMD can lead to secondary damage observed in both animal models and humans. However, growing evidence suggests that tissue repair is dependent on the immune system; hence, IR repression may not be as sound as it appears. PURPOSE To test the effect of IR repression on 1) the time course of muscle function and leukocyte concentrations and 2) adaptation to eccentric contractions. Our hypothesis was that the IR is essential for efficient muscle repair and should not be repressed. METHODS In the first series of experiments, ankle dorsiflexors were submitted to one bout of elicited eccentric contractions. Rats were then treated for 2d with diclofenac (DCL, 1mg/kg, BID) and the time course of maximal in vitro force production and muscle leukocyte concentrations was assessed. In the second series, rats were submitted to 2 bouts performed 14d apart. Rats were treated for 2 or 7d with DCL (1mg/kg, BID). Muscle function was evaluated before and 2d after each bout via in vitro measurement of contractile properties. Repression of IR was monitored through assessment of leukocyte subset concentrations. RESULTS In the first series, DCL blocked the second force deficit seen in the placebo group but the time needed to fully recover was not affected by this treatment. Macrophage ED1+ and ED2+ infiltration was also diminished by DCL treatment while no increase in neutrophil concentration was observed post-EIMD. In the second series, DCL, but not the vehicle, reduced both the force decline and the increase in the concentration of leukocytes after the first bout. However, after the second bout, only rats receiving DCL for 7d showed a deficit in force production and an increase in leukocyte concentrations. CONCLUSION Although a beneficial effect on force production is observed after a first bout and recovery time seems unaffected, prolonged treatment with DCL interferes with adaptation to eccentric contractions. Contributions from FRSQ and REPAR (B.M.L.) AND NSERC (C.H.C.) are acknowledged.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207