Familial Resemblance for Muscle Phenotypes in the HERITAGE Family Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: We hypothesized that skeletal muscle histological and biochemical phenotypes aggregate within families. METHODS: Nineteen families (78 Caucasians) from the HERITAGE Family Study participated in the study. Proportions and areas of Type I, IIA, and IIX muscle fibers, capillary density, and maximal enzyme activities were determined in biopsy samples from the vastus lateralis obtained in the sedentary state and after a 20-wk endurance-training program. RESULTS: In the sedentary state, there was evidence for familial resemblance for Type I fiber area (P = 0.007), number of capillaries around Type I and Type IIA fibers (P = 0.04), and Type I and IIA fiber areas per capillary (P = 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). Significant familial aggregation (0.05>P > 0.0001) was observed for maximal activities of enzymes of the energy production pathways. With regard to the training response, significant familial aggregation (0.05 > P < 0.0001) was observed for maximal activities of enzymes of the energy production pathways. CONCLUSION: These data provide evidence of familial aggregation for enzyme activities of the main energy metabolism pathways of the skeletal muscle in the sedentary state and in response to regular exercise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".