MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025550610 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002625

Mechanical and Structural Remodeling of Cardiac Muscle after Aerobic and Resistance Exercise Training in Rats

2021· article· en· W3025550610 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Boldt, Venus Joumaa, Jeannine Turnbull, Paul W.M. Fedak, Walter Herzog

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Fibrosis and Remodeling
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic exerciseCardiologyIsometric exerciseInternal medicineMedicineCardiac muscleCardiac outputResistance trainingCardiac function curveCalciumStroke volumeEndocrinologyHeart rateHemodynamicsHeart failureBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Aerobic and resistance exercise training results in distinct structural changes of the heart. The mechanics of how cardiac cells adapt to resistance training and the benefits to cells when combining aerobic and resistance exercise remains largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare mechanical adaptations of skinned cardiac fiber bundles after chronic resistance, aerobic and combined exercise training in rats. We hypothesized that differences in mechanical function on the fiber bundle level coincide with differences previously reported in the structure of the heart. METHOD: Twelve-week-old rats were assigned to (i) an aerobic running group (n = 6), (ii) a ladder climbing resistance group (n = 6), (iii) a combination group subjected to aerobic and resistance training (n = 6), or (iv) a sedentary (control) group (n = 5). Echocardiography was used to measure cardiac structural remodeling. Skinned cardiac fiber bundles were used to determine active and passive force properties, maximal shortening velocity, and calcium sensitivity. RESULTS: Aerobically trained animals had 43%-49% greater ventricular volume and myocardial thickness, and a 4%-17% greater shortening velocity and calcium sensitivity compared with control group rats. Resistance-trained rats had 37%-71% thicker ventricular walls, a 56% greater isometric force production, a 9% greater shortening velocity, and a 4% greater calcium sensitivity compared with control group rats. The combination exercise-trained rats had 25%-43% greater ventricular volume and myocardial wall thickness, a 55% greater active force production, a 7% greater shortening velocity, and a 60% greater cross-bridge cooperativity compared with control group rats. CONCLUSIONS: The heart adapts differently to each exercise modality, and a combination of aerobic and resistance training may have the greatest benefit for cardiac health and performance.

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)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiac Fibrosis and RemodelingFrench-language works237,207