Prevention of muscle disuse atrophy by low-frequency electrical stimulation in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When muscles lose neural drive, they atrophy rapidly. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMS) has been used in attempts to prevent or reverse the atrophy, but optimal stimulation programs and parameters are not well defined. In this study, we investigated the effects of four different stimulation patterns on disuse atrophy produced in the tibialis anterior, lateral gastrocnemius, and soleus muscles of rats paralyzed with tetrodotoxin for seven days. Stimulation paradigms differed from one another by their stimulation frequency (2 or 10 pulses/s) and by their stimulation period (2 or 10 h a day). Results showed that stimulation with 2 pulses/s, paradigms were more effective at preventing disuse muscle atrophy than higher-frequency stimulation. The most marked difference was in the slow soleus muscle, which had only 10% mean atrophy when stimulated at 2 pulses/s for 10 h, compared to 26% atrophy when stimulated at 10 pulses/s for either 2 or 10 h and 32% atrophy in unstimulated, paralyzed controls. The level of atrophic change was not correlated with the levels of serum creatine kinase, used as an index of muscle damage. Results suggest that remediation of disuse atrophy may be accomplished using unphysiologically low rates of motor-unit activation despite the relatively low force produced by such unfused contractions. This may have significant implications for the design of therapies for muscle paralysis consequent to upper-motoneuron lesions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".