No Effect of Caloric Restriction or Exercise on Radiation Repair Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Maintenance of normal weight and higher levels of physical activity are associated with a reduced risk of several types of cancer. Because genomic instability is regarded as a hallmark of cancer development, one proposed mechanism is improvement of DNA repair function. We investigated links between dietary weight loss, exercise, and strand break rejoining in an ancillary study to a randomized-controlled trial. METHODS: Overweight/obese postmenopausal women (n = 439) were randomized to the following: a) reduced calorie weight loss diet ("diet," n = 118), b) moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise ("exercise," n = 117), c) a combination ("diet + exercise," n = 117), or d) control (n = 87). The reduced calorie diet had a 10% weight loss goal. The exercise intervention consisted of 45 min of moderate to vigorous aerobic activity 5 d·wk for 12 months. DNA repair capacity was measured in a subset of 226 women at baseline and 12 months from cryopreserved peripheral mononuclear cells using the comet assay. Anthropometric and body composition measures were performed at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: DNA repair capacity did not change significantly with any of the 12-month interventions compared with control; there were also no significant changes when stratified by changes in body composition or aerobic fitness (V˙O2max). At baseline, DNA repair capacity was positively associated with weight, body mass index, and fat mass (r = 0.20, P = 0.003; r = 0.19, P = 0.004; r = 0.13, P = 0.04, respectively) and inversely with lean body mass (r = -0.14, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, DNA repair capacity in cryopreserved PBMCs (Comet Assay) did not change with dietary weight loss or exercise interventions in postmenopausal women within a period of 12 months. Other assays that capture different facets of DNA repair function may be needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".