MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026313967 · doi:10.1098/rsob.200048

Satellite cells in ageing: use it or lose it

2020· review· en· W3026313967 on OpenAlexafffund
William Chen, David Datzkiw, Michael A. Rudnicki

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Biology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsBiologySkeletal muscleSenescenceSatelliteRegeneration (biology)Cell biologySarcopeniaPopulationAtrophyMuscle atrophyStem cellMyocyteAgeingNeuroscienceAnatomyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals that maintain healthy skeletal tissue tend to live healthier, happier lives as proper muscle function enables maintenance of independence and actuation of autonomy. The onset of skeletal muscle decline begins around the age of 30, and muscle atrophy is associated with a number of serious morbidities and mortalities. Satellite cells are responsible for regeneration of skeletal muscle and enter a reversible non-dividing state of quiescence under homeostatic conditions. In response to injury, satellite cells are able to activate and re-enter the cell cycle, creating new cells to repair and create nascent muscle fibres while preserving a small population that can return to quiescence for future regenerative demands. However, in aged muscle, satellite cells that experience prolonged quiescence will undergo programmed cellular senescence, an irreversible non-dividing state that handicaps the regenerative capabilities of muscle. This review examines how periodic activation and cycling of satellite cells through exercise can mitigate senescence acquisition and myogenic decline.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations112
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen BiologySame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207