MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091144051 · doi:10.1113/ep087834

Do females and males exhibit a similar sarcopenic response as a consequence of normoxic and hypoxic bed rest?

2020· article· en· W3091144051 on OpenAlexaff
Igor B. Mekjavić, Ola Eiken, Polona Jaki Mekjavič, Adam C. McDonnell

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersKungliga Tekniska HögskolanSwedish National Space AgencyEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsIsometric exerciseHypoxia (environmental)Bed restInternal medicineMedicineLean body massEndocrinologyBody weightAnimal scienceBiologyChemistryOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NEW FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? Do females and males exhibit a similar sarcopenic response as a consequence of normoxic and hypoxic bed rest? What is the main finding and its importance? During 10-day bed rest, exposure to a simulated (normobaric hypoxia) altitude of ∼4000 m does not exert additional significant structural or functional effect on the weight-bearing muscles in females compared to those noted under normoxic conditions. Whereas males and females exhibit decrements in muscle cross-sectional area and mass during normoxic and hypoxic bed rest, a concomitant strength decrement was only observed in males. ABSTRACT: This study investigated the effects of hypoxia on the known processes of adaptation of body composition and muscle function to normoxic inactivity. Females (n = 12) and males (n = 11) took part in the following interventions: hypoxic ambulation (HAMB; ∼4000 m); hypoxic bed rest (HBR; ∼4000 m) and normoxic bed rest (NBR). Prior to and immediately following each intervention, body composition, thigh and lower leg cross-sectional area (CSA) and isometric muscular strength were recorded. Participants lost body mass (HAMB: male -1.5 ± 0.9 kg, female -1.9 ± 0.7 kg; HBR: male -2.0 ± 1.8 kg, female -2.4 ± 0.8 kg; NBR: male -1.4 ± 1.3 kg, female -1.4 ± 0.9 kg) and lean mass (HAMB: male -3.9 ± 3.0%, female -3.4 ± 2.0%; HBR: male -4.0 ± 4.4%, female -4.1 ± 2.0%; NBR: male -4.0 ± 3.4%, female -2.2 ± 2.7%) with no between-condition or sex differences. Knee extension decreased for males in NBR compared to HAMB (HAMB: male -0.2 ± 9.1%, female 1.3 ± 4.9%; HBR: male -7.8 ± 10.3%, female -3.3 ± 10.9%; NBR: male -14.5 ± 11%, female -3.4 ± 6.9%). Loss of force during maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in the knee extensors was significantly different between males and females following NBR. There were no other significant changes noted following the experimental interventions. There were no differences recorded between sexes in maximal MVC for elbow or ankle joints. Female lower leg CSA decreased following bed rest (HAMB: -4.5 ± 2.0%; HBR: -9.9 ± 2.6%; NBR: -8.0 ± 1.6%). These findings indicate that a 10-day hypoxic bed rest does not exert any significant additional effect on muscle atrophy when compared to NBR, except for female thigh CSA. In contrast to males, who exhibited a significant loss of muscle strength, no such decrement in strength was observed in the female participants.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207