DIETARY SUPPLEMENTATION WITH CONJUGATED LINOLEIC ACID AND CREATINE MONOHYDRATE DOES NOT INFLUENCE MUSCLE FIBER AREA WHEN COMBINED WITH CORTICOSTEROID ADMINISTRATION IN YOUNG RATS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously established that dietary supplementation with conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and creatine monohydrate (CM) can prevent the attenuation in growth that occurs with corticosteroid administration. It is possible that the prevention in the attenuation in body weight is partially due to alterations in muscle fiber size. PURPOSE To determine the combined effects of 8 weeks of dietary supplementation with CLA and CM and corticosteroid administration in young rats. METHODS Sixty young (4 wks) male Sprague Dawley rats were randomized into one of 6 groups; control (CON), control with methylprednisolone (7 mg/kg/week) (PRED), CLA supplemented (diet 1% CLA) (CLA), CLA-PRED, CLA-CM (diet 1%CLA, 2% CR), or CLA-CM-PRED. Extensor digitorum longus (EDL) and soleus (SOL) muscles were collected at the end of the 8 weeks and were analyzed for muscle metabolite concentrations (n=6 per group) and for mean muscle fiber cross sectional area (n=10 per group). RESULTS No differences in type II mean muscle fiber area from the EDL were observed between the 6 different groups. Similarly, no differences were observed for type I mean muscle fiber area from the SOL. Muscle metabolite concentrations (ATP, PCr, Cr, and TCr) were similar between the 6 groups. CONCLUSIONS Alterations in muscle fiber size are not responsible for the prevention of the attenuation in growth seen with CLA and CM supplementation during corticosteroid administration. Further investigation is warranted to determine the mechanism involved in these alterations in growth. Supported by a grant from the Hamilton Health Sciences Foundation. Dr. B.D. Roy was supported by a CIHR post-doctoral fellowship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".