MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386886689 · doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00093.2023

Both moderate- and high-intensity exercise training increase intramyocellular lipid droplet abundance and modify myocellular distribution in adults with obesity

2023· article· en· W4386886689 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael W. Schleh, Cheehoon Ahn, Benjamin J. Ryan, Olivia K. Chugh, Austin Luker, Jenna B. Gillen, Alison C. Ludzki, Douglas W. Van Pelt, Lisa M. Pitchford, Tao Zhang, Thomas Rode, Suzette M. Howton, Charles Burant, Jeffrey F. Horowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDivision of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic DiseasesGovernment of Canada
KeywordsInterval trainingHigh-intensity interval trainingInternal medicineLipid metabolismEndocrinologySkeletal muscleIntensity (physics)Lipid accumulationContinuous trainingChemistryMedicinePhysical therapyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, 12 wk of either moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) or high-intensity interval training (HIIT) enhanced skeletal muscle lipid abundance by increasing lipid droplet number within the intramyofibrillar (IMF) region of muscle. Because the IMF associates with high energy production during muscle contraction, this adaptation may enhance lipid oxidation during exercise. Despite differences in training intensity and energy expenditure between MICT and HIIT, their effects on muscle lipid abundance and metabolism were remarkably similar.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism→Same topicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→