MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065585347 · doi:10.1139/y04-082

The effect of activity during early postnatal development on motor unit size

2004· article· en· W2065585347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gerta Vrbovà, M.B. Lowrie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMuscular Dystrophy UK
KeywordsMotor unitBiologyInternal medicineChemistryNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At early stages of neuromuscular development, motor unit territory is expanded, with each muscle fibre being supplied by several axons. During postnatal development, some synapses are eliminated, motor unit size decreases, and the adult distribution of motor unit sizes emerges. This process depends on activity, since it proceeds more rapidly when the nerve is activated and is slower when activity is reduced. Here we studied whether, in addition to influencing the rate of retraction of motor unit territory, activity during the critical period of development affects the final outcome of the distribution of motor unit sizes. The sciatic nerve of 8- to 12-day-old rats was stimulated daily. One week later the tension of the extensor digitorum longus muscle and that of its individual motor units was recorded. The sizes of individual motor units were calculated and compared with those from animals that received no stimulation. The distribution of motor unit sizes from stimulated muscles was not significantly different from those from control muscles. Therefore, we conclude that although activity increases the rate at which motor units attain their adult size, it does not influence the final outcome of motor unit size distribution.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207