Editorial: The role of muscle secretome in health and disease—Volume II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorial on the Research Topic The role of muscle secretome in health and disease-Volume IIIn the first edition of our Research Topic, we have tried to collect a series of articles, including reviews and original research, that could represent as reliably as possible the growing interest in muscle secretome among researchers worldwide.Of the 12 articles that we collected at the end of the first edition, no less than ten analyzed some novelties related to myokines, which are among the main actors allowing the muscle to communicate with distant organs, partly controlling its metabolism and biological functions in both health and disease.The relationship that exists between the production and/or release of myokines from resting muscle and muscle contraction is variable: it may depend on the level and type of physical activity performed or may not be related to it at all.In the editorial that accompanied the first edition (Aguer et al.), we attempted to draw an identikit including the essential characteristics needed for a molecule to be identified as a myokine.This shows how we are still moving in an extremely fluid and constantly updated field of research, which almost every month provides us with news and opens new scenarios that were not conceivable only a short time before.The muscle secretome contains thousands of compounds of which myokines are probably only a small part.There has been accumulating evidence for exercise-induced skeletal muscle secretion of microRNAs, mitochondrial DNA, various metabolites, and enzymes.The role of exosomes and extracellular vesicles (EVs) in the transport of some of these factors has also been in the spotlight over the past 5 years and was the subject of two excellent reviews in Vol 1 of our Research Topic.With this second volume, we are broadening the discussion by adding new Review Articles and Original Papers addressing the role of the muscle secretome in health and disease.Bringing our editorial experience to a close, enriched by confrontation with the hundreds of possible authors we have contacted over the years and by the guidance and editorial support from our friends at Frontiers in Physiology, whom we continue to thank for their
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.023 |
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".