The effect of a tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor and a B1-receptor antagonist on delayed-onset muscle soreness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The involvement of the pro-inflammatory cytokine, tumour necrosis factor alpha \n(TNF-α) and the sympathetic nervous system in the development of delayed-onset \nmuscle soreness has not been established. I assessed the effect of etanercept, a TNF- \nα inhibitor, and atenolol, a β1-receptor antagonist, on DOMS induced in the \nquadriceps muscle. Thirteen male subjects reported to the exercise laboratory on \nthree separate occasions, 6-15 weeks apart. In a randomised, double-blind cross-over \nformat, I administered etanercept (25mg), atenolol (25mg) or placebo, one hour \nbefore the exercise. Subjects then completed four sets of 15 repetitions at 80% of \ntheir one repetition maximum (1RM) on a 45° inclined leg press machine. Muscle \nstrength changes were detected by remeasuring the subject’s 1RM 24h, 48h and 72h \nafter the exercise. Sensitivity to pressure of the quadriceps muscle was measured \nusing a pressure algometer before and 24h, 48h and 72h after exercise. The subject’s \nperception of the pain was measured with the visual analogue scale and McGill Pain \nQuestionnaire. Muscle tumour necrosis factor-alpha concentration was measured \nbefore exercise and then 2h and 24h after exercise in four subjects. Muscle strength \nwas impaired 24h and 48h after exercise regardless of agent administered (P < \n0.001). At 72h after exercise, muscle strength was significantly improved (P < 0.01) \nin subjects receiving etanercept and atenolol compared to those receiving placebo. \nThe subject’s were significantly more sensitive to pressure applied to the quadriceps \n24h, 48h and 72h after exercise compared to before exercise, regardless of agent \nadministered (P < 0.001). The VAS was elevated significantly at all three time \nintervals, with no difference after etanercept or atenolol administration compared to \n \nthat of placebo. There was no significant difference in the muscle TNF-α \nconcentration between any of the time intervals or between subjects receiving \nplacebo and etanercept (P=0.065). The administration of atenolol and etanercept, at \nthe regimen used, had no effect on the soreness associated with DOMS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".