Anabolic Hormones in Aging Women: Effects of Supplementation vs. Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging is associated with a decline in bone mass, muscle mass, strength, and physical function, and women are more likely to suffer from these physical changes than men. The model presented in this paper illustrates the age related changes in anabolic hormones and how this may partly explain the diminished physical function of older women. The model can also be used to identify potential sites of intervention that could delay the atrophy of the musculoskeletal system. Various pharmacological hormone therapies have been shown to be beneficial, but there may be health risks associated with their use. There is evidence that regular physical activity is related to higher levels of anabolic hormones in older persons, therefore exercise could be an alternative to drugs for slowing the age related changes in the endocrine system. However, some research suggests that the hormone response to exercise is blunted in older women. This lower hormonal response may not be a consequence of aging per se but instead may result from secondary characteristics of aging such as a decline in physical fitness and exercise intensity or changes in body composition. Further research is needed to determine whether exercise-induced increases in endogenous hormones have clinical significance in improving muscle or bone mass in aging women.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".