MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130472827 · doi:10.1139/h01-032

Hormone Responses to Resistance vs. Endurance Exercise in Premenopausal Females

2001· article· en· W2130472827 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestosterone (patch)Endurance trainingInternal medicineHormoneMedicineSession (web analytics)EndocrinologyHeart rateResistance trainingEndocrine systemGrowth hormoneAerobic exerciseBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixteen, cross-trained, premenopausal women participated in an endurance, resistance, and control session to compare hormone responses. The resistance session included 3 sets of eight exercises at 10 RM intensity. The endurance session consisted of a 40-min cycling protocol at 75% of maximal heart rate. During the control session, subjects rested for 35 min. Serum DHEA, estradiol, testosterone, growth hormone, IGF-I, cortisol, and plasma lactate concentrations were measured pre-exercise, post-exercise, and 30 min into recovery. Differences in intensity variables existed between the three sessions. Endurance exercise elicited increases in growth hormone, estradiol, and testosterone compared to the control session, and growth hormone increased after the resistance compared to the control session. The exercise protocols used in this study indicate that an acute bout of exercise can stimulate the endocrine system in premenopausal females. In addition, these results indicate that differences exist between these two exercise protocols when compared to a control session.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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