MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175315908 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.20.4.a810-a

Voluntary wheel running as a training stimulus in mouse muscle function

2006· article· en· W3175315908 on OpenAlex
Jason J. Villarin, Richard C. Carlsen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Physical Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersShriners Hospitals for Children
KeywordsWheel runningStimulus (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyNeuroscienceBiologyMedicineCognitive psychologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study characterized the efficacy of voluntary wheel running (VWR) to induce an adaptive exercise training response in mouse muscle. Female c57BL/6 mice were allowed free access to a running wheel for a period of 0–21 days. Following VWR access, hindlimb skeletal muscles were measured for changes in weight, contractile properties, and fatigue resistance. An organismal training response was seen as increased voluntary running activity at a rate of 1.9km/d up to day 5 and at a rate of approximately 0.4km/d through day 10 ; resulting in an average daily distance of 13.4km at the trained plateau. An in vivo training effect by VWR was also seen as a 2.4‐fold increase in performance during a treadmill‐based endurance test. Cardiovascular adaptation was evident by a 14% increase in heart weight within seven days of continuous VWR access. The VWR stimulus failed to induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy or increased contractile force. However, VWR gave rise to increased fatigue resistance, improved low‐frequency force recovery from fatigue, and increased twitch relaxation kinetics when the gastrocnemius‐plantaris muscle complex was evaluated in situ . These results support VWR as a means to induce a systemic and muscle‐based endurance training response. These data suggest that unloaded VWR is not an effective means to induce hypertrophy or increased strength in locomotory muscles of mice. By describing the normative response to VWR in mice, we are able to use this training modality as an adaptive stimulus or as an evaluative tool in the organismal and muscular response to disease states or other such perturbations. Supported in part by Shriners Hospitals for Children. JJV was an NIH‐IMSD predoctoral fellow.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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