MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The effects of creatine and exercise on skeletal muscle of FRG1‐transgenic mice

2010· article· en· W2599961781 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel I. Ogborn, Adeel Safdar, Bart P. Hettinga, Justin D. Crane, Rossella Tupler, Mark A. Tarnopolsky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreatineInternal medicineEndocrinologyMuscle atrophyMedicineAtrophyMuscular dystrophyGenetically modified mouseTransgeneBiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transgenic overexpression of Fascioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD) Region Gene 1 (FRG1) results in severe muscle atrophy and weakness reminiscent of the human disease FSHD. Treatments that act to mitigate muscle dysfunction in the FRG1‐transgenic mouse could hold therapeutic benefit to FSHD patients. Forty FRG1 mice were divided into sedentary, creatine (Cr), and combination creatine and exercise treated groups (CrEx). Creatine was incorporated into standard rat chow at 2% (w/w) and animals exercised in thirty minute bouts at 12–15m/min, three times per week over 52 days. There were no effects of any treatment on bodyweight however quadriceps weight increased 15% in CrEX but not in Cr (P<0.05). CrEX had greater percentage improvements in grip strength (147%, P<0.05) and Rotarod fall speed (204%, P<0.001). As Cr resulted in no functional improvements, the positive effects of CrEX appear to be mediated by exercise, however the potential synergistic action of the combined treatment cannot be excluded. Low intensity exercise attenuates the atrophy and muscle dysfunction associated with FRG1 overexpression, resulting in modest improvements in muscle function. The mechanisms responsible for the beneficial effects of exercise remain to be determined.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMuscle Physiology and Disorders→French-language works237,207→