MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144682732 · doi:10.1002/mus.21965

Exercise‐induced muscle growth is muscle‐specific and age‐dependent

2011· article· en· W2144682732 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Leiter, Jason Peeler, Judy E. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPan Am Clinic
FundersParent Project Muscular Dystrophy
KeywordsMyostatinSarcopeniaMyoDEndocrinologyInternal medicineMuscle hypertrophyMedicineGastrocnemius muscleMuscle atrophyNitric oxideSkeletal muscleAnatomyMyogenesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Sarcopenia, and the importance of satellite cells (SCs) in muscle growth led us to examine the effects of exercise and age on SC activation and gene expression. METHODS: Eight- and 18-month-old mice were either sedentary or underwent 3 weeks of exercise (N = 24). Body mass, distance traveled, and grip strength were recorded at weekly intervals. The extensor digitorum longus (EDL), tibialis anterior (TA), gastrocnemius (GAST), and quadriceps (QUAD) muscles were analyzed along with muscle fiber area, SC activation, neuronal nitric oxide synthase (NOS-I), MyoD, and myostatin protein content. RESULTS: Older mice demonstrated decreased body mass, grip strength, and fiber area, but these changes were not affected by exercise. The QUAD muscle from young mice demonstrated an exercise-induced increase in SC activation and NOS-I and downregulation of myostatin. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-induced activation of SCs and regulation of gene expression are muscle-specific and age-dependent. Perturbed sensitivity to exercise in older mice provides insight into sarcopenia and potential treatments.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations42
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207