MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118317631 · doi:10.1139/h07-064

Cortisol and GH: odd and controversial ideas

2007· review· en· W2118317631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martine Duclos, Michel Guinot, Yves Le Bouc

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal Hormones and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvertrainingEndocrinologyInternal medicineHormoneGrowth hormoneHypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axisAdaptation (eye)SecretionInsulin-like growth factorPsychologyHomeostasisMedicineGrowth factorNeuroscienceReceptorAthletesPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and of the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor-1 (GH/IGF-1) axis represents a physiological response to the energetic, metabolic, vascular, and sometimes neurophysiologic or psychological needs of exercise. Long-lasting increased and (or) decreased secretion of cortisol (the end-product of the HPA axis) or of GH is detrimental to health. This suggests that the activity of these hormonal axes is finely tuned toward homeostasia, tolerating limited prolonged homeostatic disruption. However, the relationships between exercise training and cortisol and GH secretion are full of odd and controversial ideas. In this review, the relationships between HPA axis adaptation to exercise training or disadaptation with overtraining will be discussed, with an emphasis on the limitation on the current measures used to profile hormonal activity. Knowledge of these relationships between cortisol and GH responses to exercise is an important tool to fight against doping with glucocorticoids and GH, and their health-damaging consequences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations62
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicAdrenal Hormones and DisordersFrench-language works237,207