MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022634924 · doi:10.1126/sageke.2003.46.pe31

Sarcopenia--A Critical Perspective

2003· review· en· W2022634924 on OpenAlex
Russell T. Hepple

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience of Aging Knowledge Environment · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaAtrophySkeletal muscleMuscle atrophyAnabolismEndocrinologyInternal medicineAgeingRegeneration (biology)Muscle fibreMuscle massWastingBiologyMedicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging is associated with a progressive decline in skeletal muscle mass and function (sarocopenia). Despite several years of research, controversy exists regarding the manifestations and causes of sarcopenia. In the former respect, whereas a preferential loss of so-called "fast-twitch" muscle fibers occurs in rat models of aging, this appears unlikely in human skeletal muscle. In the latter respect, whereas a decline in physical activity with aging contributes to whole-muscle atrophy, it cannot explain the marked heterogeneity in muscle fiber size seen in aged muscles. Similarly, systemic alterations, such as reduced blood levels of anabolic hormones and nutritional deficits, although involved in modulating the degree of whole-muscle atrophy, cannot explain the observation that only some fibers atrophy and die while most appear unaffected. A further significant question remaining is that if death of some muscle fibers is normal and perhaps advantageous (that is, by removing malfunctioning cells), what is the capacity for muscle fiber regeneration in adult skeletal muscle and can this process be augmented in aging muscles?

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.333 · 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