MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of regression of exercise‐induced cardiac hypertrophy

2010· article· en· W72029605 on OpenAlexaff
Janelle Stricker, C.E. Nichols, Andrew Katz, Ibra S. Fancher, Tiffany C Cuppett, Kady Miletti, Corey Vasisko, Erinne R. Dabkowski, Walter A. Baseler, John M. Hollander, Michael R. Morissette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsCanadian Society for Exercise Physiology
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMuscle hypertrophyMedicineInternal medicineProtein kinase BEndocrinologyCardiologyHeart failurePhosphorylationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The heart is capable of changing size in response to changes in chronic stress or demand. Exercise and hypertension are classic examples of stimuli that promote physiologic and pathologic hypertrophy respectively. Although initially beneficial for maintaining function with increased stress, pathologic hypertrophy can progress to heart failure if the inducing stress is not mitigated. Additionally, in contrast to physiologic hypertrophy, reverse remodeling of pathologic hypertrophy is often incomplete in respect to returning to normal size and function. In order to understand the molecular mechanisms involved in the reversal of hypertrophy we subjected mice to a three‐week swim protocol followed by 0, 3, and 6 days of rest. Swim‐training induced a 25.4±2.0% (n=19, p<0.05) increase in heart weight/body weight compared to sedentary controls (n=13). Hypertrophy regressed by 31.8% and 90.0% after 3 and 6 days of rest respectively. Interestingly, western blot analysis showed an increase in cardiac LC3B II in rested mice, suggesting the involvement of autophagy in reverse remodeling. Unexpectedly the phosphorylation of Akt (308, 473), GSK3β, and S6 were not increased in rested hearts, but actually decreased in hypertrophied hearts. These data suggest that the observed increase in LC3B II is not mediated by the Akt‐mTOR pathway. Support: NCRR 5P20RR016477 (WV INBRE), NIA K01AG026337 (MRM), AHA (MRM)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207