MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Influence of Caffeine on Voluntary Muscle Activation

2005· review· en· W2025042743 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaffeineNeuroscienceTurnoverStimulantSkeletal muscleReflexPsychologyMedicinePharmacologyAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caffeine is a very common CNS stimulant that has been of interest to physiologists because of its direct effects on skeletal muscle in vitro, as well as ergogenic effects on laboratory tests of human performance. While in vitro studies have clearly demonstrated the effects of the drug on the CNS, the effects of caffeine on the voluntary activation of muscle in humans are less defined. Voluntary as well as involuntary supraspinal input, alpha motor neuron membrane properties, and afferent feedback to spinal and supraspinal neurons all modulate voluntary muscle activation, and caffeine may therefore alter muscle activation at several sites along the motor pathway. This review explores the effects of caffeine on voluntary muscle activation that have been demonstrated in recent human studies and discusses the central mechanisms that may enhance activation. Evidence of caffeine's effects on the motor evoked potential, Hoffman reflex, self-sustained firing of the alpha motor neuron, and pain and force sensation are presented as well as limitations and considerations of using the drug in human neuromuscular studies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.336 · 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