Changes in muscle cross-sectional area during two menstrual cycles may not be exclusively attributed to resistance training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of menstrual cycle (MC) phases and resistance training (RT) on muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) in two MCs utilizing a within-subject design. Twenty women with regular MCs had their legs randomly allocated to either the control (CON) or RT condition, which included 16 training sessions over two MCs. CSA, estradiol (E2), and progesterone (P4) were assessed during the menstruation (M), ovulation (O), and luteal (L) phases in the first (M1, O1, L1) and second (M2, O2, L2) MCs and at the beginning of the third MC (M3). P4 values were significantly higher during the luteal phase than during menstruation ( P < 0.0001) and ovulation ( P < 0.0001). No significant differences in E2 concentrations were observed between the MC phases ( P = 0.08). For the RT condition, the CSA showed significant increases at O2, L2, and M3 compared to baseline (M1) (all P < 0.0001). No significant changes were observed for the CON condition during the two MCs ( P > 0.05). However, RT condition showed a significant change in average CSA across two MCs. Additionally, individual analyses revealed that 19 participants showed variation in CSA above or below the minimum detectable difference during the two MCs. These findings suggest that changes in muscle CSA observed during two MCs may not be exclusively attributed to RT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".