MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Passive force enhancement in striated muscle

2019· review· en· W2944183834 on OpenAlexafffund
Walter Herzog

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSarcomereAnatomyChemistryMedicineMaterials scienceBiophysicsBiomedical engineeringMyocyteBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passive force enhancement is defined as the increase in passive, steady-state, isometric force of an actively stretched muscle compared with the same muscle stretched passively to that same length. Passive force enhancement is long lasting, increases with increasing muscle length and increasing stretch magnitudes, contributes to the residual force enhancement in skeletal and cardiac muscle, and is typically only observed at muscle lengths at which passive forces occur naturally. Passive force enhancement is typically equal to or smaller than the total residual force enhancement, it persists when a muscle is deactivated and reactivated, but can be abolished instantaneously when a muscle is shortened quickly from its stretched length. There is strong evidence that the passive force enhancement is caused by the filamentous sarcomeric protein titin, although the detailed molecular mechanisms underlying passive force enhancement remain unknown. Here I propose a tentative mechanism based on experimental evidence that associates passive force enhancement with the shortening of titin's free spring length in the I-band region of sarcomeres. I suggest that this shortening is accomplished by titin binding to actin and that the trigger for titin-actin interactions is associated with the formation of strongly bound cross bridges between actin and myosin that exposes actin attachment sites for titin through movement of the regulatory proteins troponin and tropomyosin.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207