MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064958017 · doi:10.1139/h07-141

Resistance training, sarcopenia, and the mitochondrial theory of aging

2008· review· en· W2064958017 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adam P. W. Johnston, Michael De Lisio, Gianni Parise

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaSkeletal muscleMitochondrial DNASenescenceCountermeasureResistance trainingMitochondrionBiologyGerontologyGeneticsCell biologyMedicineEndocrinologyGeneMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeletal muscle aging is associated with a significant loss of muscle mass, strength, function, and quality of life. In addition, the healthcare cost of aging and age-related disease is growing, and will continue to grow as a larger proportion of our population reaches retirement age and beyond. The mitochondrial theory of aging has been identified as a leading explanation of the aging process and describes a path leading to cellular senescence that includes electron transport chain deficiency, reactive oxygen species production, and the accumulation of mitochondrial DNA deletions and mutations. It is also quite clear that regular resistance exercise is a potent and effective countermeasure for skeletal muscle aging. In this review, we discuss age-related sarcopenia, the mitochondrial theory of aging, and how resistance exercise may directly affect key components of the mitochondrial theory. It is clear from the data discussed that regular resistance training can effectively disturb processes that contribute to the progression of aging as it pertains to the mitochondrial theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations172
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207