MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033437772 · doi:10.1139/h05-108

Resting Membrane Potential of Rat Plantaris Muscle Fibers After Prolonged Indirect Stimulation in Situ: Effect of Glucose Infusion

2005· article· en· W2033437772 on OpenAlexafffund
Antony D. Karelis, François Péronnet, Phillip F. Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStimulationInternal medicineEndocrinologyIn situChemistrySkeletal muscleMembrane potentialPlantaris muscleMuscle fatigueMedicineElectromyographyBiochemistrySoleus muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine whether glucose infusion during prolonged indirect muscle stimulation (50 Hz for 200 ms every 2.7 s at 5 V) would have an effect on resting membrane potential (RMP). The RMP measured at Min 1 in the recovery period following stimulation of the rat plantaris muscle for 60 min in situ was significantly decreased in control rats, but was back to baseline values within 2 min. When glucose was infused ([glucose] approximately 10 mM), no change was observed in RMP, and muscle fatigue and the reduction in M-wave peak-to-peak amplitude were both attenuated. However, muscle force and the electrical properties of the membrane were deteriorated both in rats infused with glucose and in control rats at Min 2 during the recovery period, at a time when RMP was not modified. These observations suggest that the effect of increased circulating glucose on fatigue-associated reductions in muscle fiber RMP seems to be modest and short-lived. Therefore, the attenuating effect of elevated glucose on muscle fatigue responses could be through mechanisms other than those associated with maintenance of RMP during fatigue.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207