Excitation–contraction coupling properties in women with work-related myalgia: a preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the potential role of selected excitation-contraction coupling processes in females with work-related myalgia (WRM) by comparing WRM with healthy controls (CON) using tissue from extensor carpi radialis brevis (ECRB) and trapezius (TRAP) muscles. For the ECRB, age (mean ± SE) was 29.6 ± 3.5 years for CON (n = 9) and 39.2 ± 2.8 years for WRM (n = 13), while for the TRAP, the values were 26.0 ± 2.1 years for CON (n = 7) and 44.6 ± 2.9 years for WRM (n = 11). For the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) of the ECRB, WRM displayed concentrations (nmol·(mg protein)(-1)·min(-1)) that were lower (P < 0.05) for Total (202 ± 4.4 vs 178 ± 7.1), Basal (34 ± 1.6 vs 30.1 ± 1.3), and maximal Ca(2+)-ATPase activity (Vmax, 168 ± 4.9 vs 149 ± 6.3), and Ca(2+)-uptake (5.06 ± 0.31 vs 4.13 ± 0.29), but not SERCA1a and SERCA2a isoforms, by comparison with CON. When age was incorporated as a co-variant, Total, Basal, and Ca(2+)-uptake remained different from CON (P < 0.05), but not Vmax (P = 0.13). For TRAP, none of the ATPase properties differed between groups (P > 0.05) either before or following adjustment for age. No differences (P > 0.05) were observed between the groups for Ca(2+)-release in the SR for either TRAP or ECRB. Similarly, no deficiencies, regardless of muscle, were noted for either the Na(+)-K(+)-ATPase content or the α and β subunit isoform distribution in WRM. This preliminary study provides a basis for further research, with expanded numbers, investigating the hypothesis that abnormalities in SR Ca(2+)-regulation are involved in the cellular etiology of WRM.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".