MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2228040504 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.88.1.226

Effects of exercise on muscle transverse relaxation determined by MR imaging and in vivo relaxometry

2000· article· en· W2228040504 on OpenAlexaff
George Saab, Robert T. Thompson, Greg D. Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health CentreLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelaxometryMagnetic resonance imagingIn vivoNuclear magnetic resonanceRelaxation (psychology)Nuclear medicineMedicineChemistryAnatomyInternal medicineSpin echoRadiologyPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of intense exercise on the proton transverse (T(2)) relaxation of human skeletal muscle. The flexor digitorium profundus muscles of 12 male subjects were studied by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 6 echoes, 18-ms echo time) and in vivo magnetic resonance relaxometry (1,000 echoes, 1.2-ms echo time), before and after an intense handgrip exercise. MRI of resting muscle produced a single T(2) value of 32 ms that increased by 19% (P < 0.05) with exercise. In vivo relaxometry showed at least three T(2) components (>5 ms) for all subjects with mean values of 21, 40, and 137 ms and respective magnitudes of 34, 49, and 14% of the total magnetic resonance signal. These component magnitudes changed with exercise by -44% (P < 0.05), +52% (P < 0.05), and +23% (P < 0.05), respectively. These results demonstrate that intense exercise has a profound effect on the multicomponent T(2) relaxation of muscle. Changes in the magnitudes of all the T(2) components synergistically increase MRI T(2), but changes in the two shortest T(2) components predominate.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations67
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207