Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative review explores the concept of muscle memory, focusing on the physiological and biochemical mechanisms underlying information retention in skeletal muscle tissue as it relates to antidoping. The discussion encompasses the role of satellite cells (SCs) in myonuclei recruitment, resulting in increased myonuclear density and heightened muscle protein turnover. The myonuclear domain theory suggests that myonuclei acquired during hypertrophy may persist, contributing to enhanced muscle protein synthesis (MPS) and potential benefits of muscle memory. The impact of sustained training, protein intake, and resistance exercise on muscle memory, especially in elite athletes, is considered. The review also delves into the influence of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) on muscle tissue, highlighting their role in elevating the performance threshold and supporting recovery during intense training through increased muscle protein turnover rates. Additionally, genetic and epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation, are explored as potential contributors to muscle memory. The complex interplay of continuous training, AAS use, and genetic factors offers avenues for further research, especially in the context of antidoping efforts. The understanding of muscle memory has implications for maintaining performance gains and addressing ethical challenges in sports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".