Chronic metformin intake improves anaerobic but not aerobic capacity in healthy rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of chronic metformin intake on aerobic and anaerobic capacity was examined in healthy rats. Twenty rats completed 10 days of metformin (MET) ingestion (250 mg). After this period, the animals performed four high-intensity bouts until exhaustion at 9%, 11%, 13%, and 15% of body mass (BM) in swimming, separated by 24 h, with prior metformin (250 mg) or placebo (PL). The critical load (CL) and anaerobic work capacity (AWC – W′) were calculated and considered aerobic and anaerobic capacity, respectively. There was no difference in CL between the MET and PL groups (p > 0.05). The AWC – W′ was higher in the MET group than in the PL group (p = 0.004). Time until exhaustion (seconds) at all bouts were higher (p < 0.004) in the MET group (9% of BM = 434.5 ± 267.3, 11% of BM = 269.6 ± 214.2, 13% of BM = 174.0 ± 40.9, 15% of BM = 146.6 ± 15.9) compared to the PL group (9% of BM = 96.4 ± 22.3, 11% of BM = 65.5 ± 13.4, 13% of BM = 51.1 ± 5.5, 15% of BM = 40.8 ± 7.5). Glucose concentration was higher at 90 and 120 min than at 0 and 30 min for the MET group (intragroup) during the oral glucose test tolerance; there was no difference between the MET and PL groups for area under curve. MET ingestion enhances AWC – W′ and times to exhaustion but not aerobic capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".