MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407375827 · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56431-7

Reply: Muscle abnormalities in Long COVID

2025· letter· en· W4407375827 on OpenAlexaff
Brent Appelman, Braeden T. Charlton, Richie P. Goulding, Tom J. Kerkhoff, Ellen A. Breedveld, Wendy Noort, Carla Offringa, Frank W. Bloemers, Michel van Weeghel, Bauke V. Schomakers, Pedro Coelho, Jelle J. Posthuma, Eleonora Aronica, W. Joost Wiersinga, Michèle van Vugt, Rob C. I. Wüst

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsPandemicMedicineBiologyPathologyOutbreakDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Ranque et al. for their interest in our recent work and alternative interpretation of our data. We refute that our findings are due to deconditioning, as Long COVID-related skeletal muscle differ fundamentally from those caused by deconditioning. We demonstrated significant physiological differences in Long COVID patients with post-exertional malaise (PEM) compared to healthy controls, even at matched physical activity levels. PEM encompasses a variety of symptoms and not only muscle soreness. Our study did not address the efficacy of exercise training, and we reject misinterpretations that all forms of exercise cause PEM. We advocate further research to define safe exercise thresholds and improve the understanding of PEM.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0330.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207