MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621129923 · doi:10.1242/jeb.158998

Contraction-induced enhancement of relaxation during high force contractions of mouse lumbrical muscle at 37°C

2017· article· en· W2621129923 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian C. P. Smith, Rene Vandenboom, A. Russell Tupling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsContraction (grammar)Muscle contractionAnatomyMuscle relaxationBiophysicsChemistryInternal medicineBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repeated stimulation of unfatigued rodent fast twitch skeletal muscle accelerates the kinetics of tension relaxation through an unknown mechanism. This effect varies with muscle type and stimulation parameters, and has been observed at physiological temperatures for submaximal but not maximal contractions. The purpose of this study was to compare relaxation kinetics of C57BL/6 mouse lumbrical muscles ex vivo from maximal isometric force (500 Hz for 20 ms) when evoked before (Pre) and after (Post) an intervening tetanic contraction at 37°C. During Post contractions we noted significant increases in the rate of tension decline during both the slow linear phase and the fast exponential phase of relaxation, as well as a reduced duration of the slow phase of relaxation compared to Pre (all P<0.05). This is the first demonstration of enhanced slow and fast relaxation phases from maximal isometric tension induced by prior stimulation in intact muscle at a physiological temperature.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207