MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530240612 · doi:10.1111/sms.12753

Dopamine/noradrenaline reuptake inhibition in women improves endurance exercise performance in the heat

2016· article· en· W2530240612 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Philip Cordery, Nicholas Peirce, Ronald J. Maughan, Phillip Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsDopamineReuptakeMedicineHeat stressReuptake inhibitorEndurance trainingInternal medicineAntidepressantSerotoninBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catecholamine reuptake inhibition improves the performance of male volunteers exercising in warm conditions, but sex differences in thermoregulation, circulating hormones, and central neurotransmission may alter this response. With local ethics committee approval, nine physically active women (mean ± SD age 21 ± 2 years; height 1.68 ± 0.08 m; body mass 64.1 ± 6.0 kg; VO 2peak 51 ± 7 mL/kg/min) were recruited to examine the effect of pre‐exercise administration of Bupropion ( BUP ; 4 × 150 mg) on prolonged exercise performance in a warm environment. Participants completed a VO 2peak test, two familiarization trials, and two randomized, double‐blind experimental trials. All trials took place during the first 10 days of the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. Participants cycled for 1 h at 60% VO 2peak followed by a 30‐min performance test. Total work done was greater during the BUP trial (291 ± 48 kJ) than the placebo trial (269 ± 46 kJ, P = 0.042, d = 0.497). At the end of the performance test, core temperature was higher on the BUP trial (39.5 ± 0.4 °C) than on the placebo trial (39.2 ± 0.6 °C, P = 0.021; d = 0.588), as was heart rate (185 ± 9 vs 179 ± 13, P = 0.043; d = 0.537). The results indicate that during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle, an acute dosing protocol of BUP can improve self‐regulated performance in warm conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207