MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155586185 · doi:10.1136/bjsm.35.4.223

Sepsis and mechanisms of inflammatory response: is exercise a good model?

2001· review· en· W2155586185 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

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepsisInflammatory responseMedicineIntensive care medicineSystemic inflammatory response syndromeInflammationHost responseImmunologyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The immune changes induced by a bout of prolonged and vigorous exercise have been suggested to be a useful experimental model of sepsis and the inflammatory response. Available literature was reviewed to evaluate this hypothesis. METHODS: Literature describing the immune response to various patterns of exercise was compared with data on the immune changes observed during sepsis and inflammation. RESULTS: Although there are qualitative similarities between the immune responses to exercise and sepsis, the magnitude of the changes induced by most forms of exercise remains much smaller than in a typical inflammatory response. Indeed, the exercise induced changes in some key elements such as plasma cytokine concentrations are too small to be detected reliably by current technology. CONCLUSIONS: If exercise is to provide a valid model of sepsis and the inflammatory response, it will be necessary to focus on subjects who are willing to exercise extremely hard, to use the pattern of exercise that has the greatest effect on the immune system, and to combine this stimulus with other psychological, environmental, or nutritional stressors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.289 · 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