The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 29 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction
Open accessAbstract
Disruption to proteins within the myofibre after a single bout of unaccustomed eccentric exercise is hypothesized to induce delayed onset of muscle soreness and to be associated with an activation of satellite cells. This has been shown in animal models using electrical stimulation but not in humans using voluntary exercise. Untrained males ( n = 8, range 22–27 years) performed 210 maximal eccentric contractions with each leg on an isokinetic dynamometer, voluntarily (VOL) with one leg and electrically induced (ES) with the other leg. Assessments from the skeletal muscle were obtained prior to exercise and at 5, 24, 96 and 192 h postexercise. Muscle tenderness rose in VOL and ES after 24 h, and did not differ between groups. Maximal isometric contraction strength, rate of force development and impulse declined in the VOL leg from 4 h after exercise, but not in ES (except at 24 h). In contrast, a significant disruption of cytoskeletal proteins (desmin) and a rise of myogenic growth factors (myogenin) occurred only in ES. Intracellular disruption and destroyed Z‐lines were markedly more pronounced in ES (40%) compared with VOL (10%). Likewise, the increase in satellite cell markers [neural cell adhesion molecule (N‐CAM) and paired‐box transcription factor (Pax‐7)] was more pronounced in ES versus VOL. Finally, staining of the intramuscular connective tissue (tenascin C) was increased equally in ES and VOL after exercise. The present study demonstrates that in human muscle, the delayed onset of muscle soreness was not significantly different between the two treatments despite marked differences in intramuscular histological markers, in particular myofibre proteins and satellite cell markers. An increase in tenascin C expression in the midbelly of the skeletal muscle in both legs provides further evidence of a potential role for the extracellular matrix in the phenomenon of delayed onset of muscle soreness.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The percentage of the total muscle area immunoreactive for tenascin C was significantly increased (VOL, 2.0% and ES, 1.4%) in both legs from 24 h postexercise.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Extracellular matrix
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the stimulated leg showed gross myofibre protein changes, with significant increases in desmin-negative, dystrophin-negative and vimentin-positive myofibres.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Myofibre proteins
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the ES leg demonstrated a significant increase in myogenin expression at 192 h postexercise when compared with the baseline sample and the corresponding time point in the VOL leg (Fig. 12).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Satellite cell markers
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the percentage of fully destroyed Z-lines in the ES leg was significantly greater at 24 and 96 h postexercise when compared with baseline and the VOL leg (Fig. 5C).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Electron microscopy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant increase in cells positive for N-CAM was found in the histological sections taken from all subjects, at 96 and 192 h postexercise in both legs (Fig. 10).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Satellite cell markers
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Maximal isometric quadriceps strength (MVC) was 16, 25 and 8% reduced in the VOL leg at 4, 24 and 96 h, respectively.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the VOL leg, a significant decrease in intact Z-lines was observed at 5, 24 and 192 h postexercise when compared with baseline (Fig. 5A).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Electron microscopy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant increase above baseline was noted in the MyoD expression in the VOL and ES leg at any time point analysed (data not shown).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Satellite cell markers
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant difference was noted between the two groups at 192 h postexercise; however, this can be attributed to the marked muscle fibre necrosis noted in the ES leg at this time”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Extracellular matrix
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pattern of Pax-7 expression did not resemble that of N-CAM expression.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Satellite cell markers
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 41
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, RFD 100 was suppressed at 4, 24 and 96 h in VOL, with no change in ES (Table 2 and Fig. 4).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was a corresponding significant increase in the percentage of Z-lines disrupted at 5 and 24 h postexercise (Fig. 5B) and a small but significant increase in fully destroyed Z-lines at 24 h postexercise (Fig. 5C).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Electron microscopy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, MVC remained unchanged in the ES leg, except at 24 h, when MVC decreased by 13.3% in ES (Table 2 and Fig. 4).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rapid muscle force capacity (RFD 50 ) was 20 and 45% reduced at 4 and 24 h in VOL, respectively, but unaffected in ES (Table 2 and Fig. 4).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indications from both staining techniques did suggest a preferential type II fibre disruption, but this cannot be confirmed.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quadriceps knee extension moment of force (peak moment, average moment in total range of motion), power (peak power, mean power) and contractile work during the 210 eccentric loading contractions were substantially greater for the voluntarily activated leg (VOL) than the electrostimulated leg (ES; P < 0.0001; Table 1).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The percentage of disrupted Z-lines was significantly higher at 24 and 96 h postexercise when compared with baseline and at 96 h postexercise when compared with the VOL leg (Fig. 5B).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Electron microscopy
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When all eccentric loading trials at fast speed (180 deg s -1 ) were averaged, quadriceps moment, power and work in ES amounted to 14-27, 19-27 and 16-17%, respectively, of that generated during VOL (Table 1).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the ES leg, there was a significant decrease in intact Z-lines at 5, 24 and 96 h postexercise when compared with baseline and at 96 h when compared with the VOL leg (Fig. 5A).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Electron microscopy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, myofibre necrosis was evident in the ES leg but not in the VOL leg, as reflected by an increase in CD68+ reactive macrophages within the desmin-negative myofibres of the ES leg (data not shown).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Myofibre proteins
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No evidence of desmin-negative, dystrophin-negative or vimentin-positive myofibres was evident in the voluntarily activated leg at any time point tested (Figs 7 and 8).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Myofibre proteins
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, relative RFD remained unchanged in ES except at 96 h, when it increased (by ∼10%).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the VOL leg, the magnitude of contractile impulse in the most initial contraction phase (IMP 50 ) was 25 and 40% reduced at 4 and 24 h (Table 2), respectively, and also reduced at 24 h when the latter phase of rising muscle force (IMP 100 ) was included (Table 2).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, two individuals showed tenascin C staining as early as 5 h postexercise in the VOL leg.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Extracellular matrix
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 2Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When all eccentric loading trials at slow speed (30 deg s -1 ) were averaged, quadriceps moment, power and work in ES amounted to 11-13, 6-13 and 11-12%, respectively, of that generated during VOL (Table 1).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Force data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“electrically in the present study, 13.7 ± 4.5% of the myofibres were desmin negative, with the peak observed at 192 h postexercise.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, in two subjects, detection of tenascin C was seen as early as 5 h postexercise, with the significant increase in expression commencing 24 h after the exercise bout.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of interest is the number of satellite cells at 192 h postexercise following ES that expressed the different satellite cell markers: 22% expressed N-CAM; 7% Pax-7; and 14% expressed myogenin.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Disruptions to the ECM were noted in this study, as evidenced by an increase the number of CD68+ immunoreactive macrophages in the ECM in both legs, with a slightly higher response seen in the VOL muscle at 24 h postexercise.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mechanical muscle function was markedly impaired in response to the eccentric voluntary contractions, while electrical stimulation only affected the relative MVC measurements.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, in the present study, despite gross morphological changes only being present within the myofibres of the electrically stimulated leg, the ectopic tenascin C immunoreactivity increased to a similar extent in muscle biopsies taken from both legs.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant difference was found between the two treatments; however, a significant time effect was noted (P < 0.05).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Conclusions
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the leg that was activated with electrical stimulation exhibited dramatic myofibre necrosis accompanied by a significant increase in mononuclear cells lying in the satellite cell position that expressed N-CAM and Pax-7 at 96 h postexercise, while all satellite cell markers (N-CAM, Pax-7 and myogenin) were increased 192 h postexercise.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant difference was noted between the two groups.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Conclusions
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most importantly, a loss of cell integrity did not occur and an inflammatory cell invasion was not evident.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has previously been suggested that animal studies may not correlate well to those in humans, since the amount of exercise is typically more severe than that seen in human studies (Wackerhage, 2003).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wackerhage, 2003
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is believed that electrical stimulation either reverses the recruitment pattern of the myofibre types or produces a non-selective, spatially fixed and temporally synchronous stimulation of the myofibres (Kim et al. 1995;Gregory & Bickel, 2005).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al. 1995 source
- Not checked yetcites Gregory & Bickel, 2005
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the staining within the disrupted fibres was not consistent with the myosin ATPase stain to enable the affected fibre to be classified, and we were not confident that the epitope was intact to enable accurate determination of the fibre type through immunohistochemistry.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that the overall contractile capacity of the quadriceps probably was more severely affected in the VOL leg compared with the ES leg, and therefore the decrements during the maximal voluntary test contractions were most compromised in that leg.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is known that bradykinin and other inflammatory mediators can interact with nociceptors in the muscle to trigger the pain response (Graven-Nielsen & Mense, 2001;Rosendal et al. 2005).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Graven-Nielsen & Mense, 2001;Rosendal et al. 2005
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Previous reports has shown a significant increase in blood and interstitial bradykinin and/or prostaglandin in human skeletal muscle and the Achilles tendon early after a single bout of exercise (Blais et al. 1999;Langberg et al. 2002Langberg et al. , 2003)).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blais et al. 1999;Langberg et al. 2002Langberg et al. , 2003
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All muscle groups responsible for a lower limb eccentric contraction would have been activated in the VOL exercise conditions and would therefore have experienced DOMS.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tenascin C is an adhesion-modulating ECM molecule that is not normally produced by fibroblasts in the endomysium along muscle fibres, except for those fibres close to the myotendinous junction (Järvinen et al. 1999(Järvinen et al. , 2000)).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Järvinen et al. 1999(Järvinen et al. , 2000) source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The voluntary exercise therefore represents the physiological responses of skeletal muscle in the lower limb to high-intensity eccentric exercise, whereas electrical stimulation results in muscle fibre necrosis and subsequent regeneration of that tissue.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Pax-7 and N-CAM are expressed in activated SC; however, the Pax-7 appears to be switched off in the satellite cells that continue through to terminal differentiation (MPC).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zammit et al. (2004)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This preferential decrease in rapid muscle force characteristics (RFD, impulse) further suggests that the stiffness of cellular mechanotransduction pathways (serial and/or lateral) was reduced following the eccentric exercise, possibly owing to changes in cytoskeletal integrity (discussed above).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We hypothesize that the eccentric contractions induced tears within the ECM and resulted in an increase in interstitial inflammatory mediators and that these triggered the nociceptor response within the muscle.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, the tibialis anterior of the rat showed 1.7% desmin-negative fibres and the peak was 12 h postexercise.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barash et al. 2002;Peters et al. 2003
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The disruption in the Z-lines did occur earlier than previously reported by Yu et al. (2004); however, this is most likely due to the different collection times used in both studies.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yu et al. (2004)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, only those muscles lying under the electrodes would have been contracted during the ES exercise, thus sparing other muscle groups from DOMS and enabling them to participate fully in the mechanical tests postexercise.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Previously, we have shown that a single bout of high-intensity exercise was sufficient to increase the number of satellite cells expressing both N-CAM and the fetal antigen 1 proteins but that myogenin expression remained unchanged (Crameri et al. 2004b).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Crameri et al. 2004b
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The growth factors myogenic factor 5 (Myf5), MyoD, myogenin and myogenic regulatory factor 4 (Mrf4) are then expressed at varying stages throughout the activation and differentiation cycle as depicted.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zammit et al. (2004)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, if the recruitment pattern during the electrical stimulation causes an early activation of type IIX fibres there is a greater potential for myofibre damage, as was seen in the present study in the ES muscle biopsies.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The difference in myofibre damage between ES and VOL is due to differences in muscle activation pattern rather than the large difference in mechanical force or work between the two modes.
In the paper
“It has been shown that tenascin C expression in skeletal muscle is regulated by mechanical stress, inflammation, or a combination of the two (Mackie et al. 1988;Mackie & Tucker, 1999;Järvinen et al. 2000Järvinen et al. , 2003;;Chiquet et al. 2004;Sarasa-Renedo & Chiquet, 2005).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mackie et al. 1988;Mackie & Tucker, 1999;Järvinen et al. 2000Järvinen et al. , 2003
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“It has previously been hypothesized that the ECM may play a role in the onset of the muscle tenderness after a single bout of eccentric exercise (Stauber et al. 1990;Crameri et al. 2004c;Malm et al. 2004).”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stauber et al. 1990;Crameri et al. 2004c;Malm et al. 2004
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although acute physiological loading can activate satellite cells, only a marked disruption to the myofibre proteins, leading to inflammatory cell invasion within the myofibre, induced terminal differentiation within the affected myofibre in human skeletal musculature following high-intensity eccentric contractions in the lower limb.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, we show that while satellite cells can be activated after a single bout of intense exercise, terminal differentiation seldom occurs without the presence of myofibre necrosis.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is likely that the non-uniform activation of muscle that occurs with voluntary eccentric contractions protects against cytoskeletal damage, in contrast to electrically stimulated activity, and that this explains the conflicting findings between isolated animal models using electrical stimulation and human studies using voluntary exercise.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that in the lower limbs of humans, muscle contractions derived from an artificial electrical impulse induce disruption of the myofibre proteins and result in terminal satellite cell differentiation following high-intensity eccentric contractions.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study demonstrates that in human muscle, the delayed onset of muscle soreness was not significantly different between the two treatments despite marked differences in intramuscular histological markers, in particular myofibre proteins and satellite cell markers.”
§ Myofibre damage in human skeletal muscle: effects of electrical stimulation versus voluntary contraction > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
The paper relies on this without support.
Baseline histological and molecular characteristics are equivalent between the two legs, even though the baseline biopsy was taken from only one leg.
“Muscle samples were taken randomly from one leg 48 h prior to the exercise bout (baseline) and from both legs 5, 24, 96 and 192 h after the exercise bout.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Electrical stimulation in this study represents the electrical stimulation used in previous animal studies.
“electrical muscle stimulation (representing that of previous animal studies)”
The paper relies on this without support.
The difference in myofibre damage between ES and VOL is due to differences in muscle activation pattern rather than the large difference in mechanical force or work between the two modes.
“Quadriceps knee extension moment of force (peak moment, average moment in total range of motion), power (peak power, mean power) and contractile work during the 210 eccentric loading contractions were substantially greater for the voluntarily activated leg (VOL) than the electrostimulated leg (ES; P < 0.0001; Table 1).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The extracellular matrix transfers up to 70% of the force produced by the myofibre.
“Since the ECM is known to transfer up to 70% of muscle force produced by the myofibre”
The paper relies on this without support.
The mass distribution, fibre pennation angle and fibre length are about the same for all quadriceps compartments.
“Given that the mass distribution of 34%, the fibre pennation angle and the fibre length are about the same for all the quadriceps compartments”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“more sensitive to detect acute and chronic changes in neuromuscular function (see, e.g., Angelozzi et al. 2012; Crameri et al. 2007; Jenkins et al. 2014b; Penailillo et al. 2015)”
From Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations (2016) · cites this paper as Crameri et al. 2007
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Discussion incorrectly rules out VOL Z-line damage
MajorThe discussion says significant Z-line damage was absent in VOL. The electron-microscopy results instead report significant disruption and an increase in fully destroyed Z-lines in that leg.
“Firstly, it was demonstrated that significant damage to the Z-lines and myofibre proteins was present in the skeletal muscle biopsies taken from the ES leg but not the VOL leg.”
“There was a corresponding significant increase in the percentage of Z-lines disrupted at 5 and 24 h postexercise (Fig. 5B) and a small but significant increase in fully destroyed Z-lines at 24 h postexercise (Fig. 5C).”
RFD100 suppression is assigned to the wrong follow-up time
MinorThe results say RFD100 was suppressed at 96 hours, but Table 2 marks the 192-hour VOL value as significant and does not mark the 96-hour value.
“Likewise, RFD 100 was suppressed at 4, 24 and 96 h in VOL, with no change in ES (Table 2 and Fig. 4).”
“RFD 100 (N m kg -1 ) VOL 18.6 ± 3.1 15.6 ± 1.9 * 12.2 ± 4.0 * 16.1 ± 2.9 14.0 ± 4.8 *”
Relative-RFD changes cite a time point absent from the table
MinorThe results report a VOL relative-RFD reduction at 48 hours, but Table 2 has no 48-hour measurement; its follow-ups are 4, 24, 96 and 192 hours.
“Relative RFD was 18 and 24% reduced in the VOL leg at 24 and 48 h, respectively (Fig. 4).”
“Table 2. Change in contractile muscle function induced by 210 eccentric muscle contractions using either VOL or ES muscle fibre activation 0 h 4 h 24 h 96 h 192 h”
Discussion places the ES Pax-7 increase at 96 hours
MinorThe discussion reports increased ES Pax-7 at 96 hours. The results state that ES Pax-7 was significantly elevated at 192 hours only.
“the leg that was activated with electrical stimulation exhibited dramatic myofibre necrosis accompanied by a significant increase in mononuclear cells lying in the satellite cell position that expressed N-CAM and Pax-7 at 96 h postexercise”
“The ES leg showed a significantly elevated expression of Pax-7 at 192 h only when compared with the control sample and the VOL leg (Fig. 11).”
Figure 7 caption reverses the VOL desmin finding
MinorThe caption claims significant desmin-negative fibres in both legs, while the results explicitly state that none were found in VOL at any measured time. Figure 8's caption also says none were found in VOL.
“Figure 7.A significant increase in the number of desminnegative myofibres was noted in both the ES and the VOL leg at 24, 96 and 192 h postexercise when compared with the baseline sample”
“No evidence of desmin-negative, dystrophin-negative or vimentin-positive myofibres was evident in the voluntarily activated leg at any time point tested (Figs 7 and 8).”
Slow-trial mean-power percentage is incorrect
MinorThe ES mean power is 0.14/1.18 × 100 = 11.9% of the VOL value, not 5.9%.
Reported 5.9 · recomputed 11.864407
“Mean power (W kg -1 ) 1.18 ± 0.12 0.14 ± 0.07 5.9%”
IMP50 increase is assigned to the wrong follow-up time
MinorThe narrative places the ES increase at 96 hours, whereas Table 2 marks only the 192-hour ES value as significant.
“impulse was not significantly different in ES, except for IMP 50 which curiously increased (by ∼10%) at 96 h.”
“IMP 50 (N m kg -1 s × 10 -3 ) VOL 26.6 ± 5.8 19.5 ± 4.8 * 16.6 ± 8.2 * 23.5 ± 7.1 22.1 ± 11.1 ES 20.8 ± 8.1 20.0 ± 5.2 22.8 ± 7.3 22.3 ± 11.1 24.6 ± 9.1 *”
Discussion calls ES MVC reductions significant despite the reported test
MinorThe discussion says both legs had significant MVC reductions at 4 and 24 hours. The results say ES MVC was unchanged apart from a 24-hour decrease, and Table 2 describes even that decrease as nonsignificant (P = 0.06).
“Both the VOL and ES legs showed significant reductions in MVC, 4 and 24 h postexercise”
“The MVC tended to decrease in ES at 24 h (P = 0.06).”
Discussion overstates when VOL Pax-7 increased
MinorThe discussion reports increased VOL Pax-7 at both 96 and 192 hours, while the results say its significant increase occurred only at 96 hours.
“In the leg that underwent voluntary exercise, we noted an increased expression at 96 and 192 h postexercise of N-CAM and Pax-7 in mononuclear cells lying in the satellite cell position.”
“A significant increase in Pax-7 expression was only observed at 96 h postexercise in the VOL leg.”
ES relative-RFD significance is placed at 96 rather than 192 hours
MinorThe narrative identifies 96 hours as the exception to unchanged ES relative RFD. In Table 2, both ES relative-RFD rows carry significance marks at 192 hours, not 96 hours.
“In contrast, relative RFD remained unchanged in ES except at 96 h, when it increased (by ∼10%).”
“RFD 1/6 (%MVC s -1 ) VOL 524 ± 96 426 ± 71 * 380 ± 186 * 487 ± 123 463 ± 193 ES 444 ± 116 434 ± 87 467 ± 146 494 ± 200 516 ± 168 * RFD 1/2 (%MVC s -1 ) VOL 524 ± 96 426 ± 71 * 380 ± 186 * 487 ± 123 463 ± 193 ES 562 ± 280 559 ± 223 582 ± 263 579 ± 294 674 ± 245 *”
Citations
Cites
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P., & Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2002) · Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00283.2002 · Cited by 1,844
Self-citationProske, U., & Morgan, D. L. (2001) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.00333.x · Cited by 1,418
Muscle function after exercise-induced muscle damage and rapid adaptation
CLARKSON, P. M., NOSAKA, K., & BRAUN, B. (1992) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/00005768-199205000-00004 · Cited by 970 · cited 2×
“…process in the epimysium of the exercised skeletal muscle occurs in the days following a single bout of eccentric exercise and that this, rather than or in combination with myofibrillar damage, is suggested to cause the DOMS (Clarkson et al. 1992; Crameri et al. 2004b; Malm et al. 2004).”
BackgroundMuscle satellite cells adopt divergent fates
Zammit, P. S., Golding, J. P., Nagata, Y., Hudon, V., Partridge, T. A., & Beauchamp, J. R. (2004) · The Journal of Cell Biology · doi:10.1083/jcb.200312007 · Cited by 924
New insights into the behavior of muscle during active lengthening
Morgan, D. L. (1990) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(90)82524-8 · Cited by 727
Recruitment Patterns in Human Skeletal Muscle During Electrical Stimulation
Gregory, C. M., & Bickel, C. S. (2005) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/85.4.358 · Cited by 615
Pax7 and myogenic progression in skeletal muscle satellite cells
Zammit, P. S., Relaix, F., Nagata, Y., Ruiz, A. P., Collins, C. A., Partridge, T. A., & Beauchamp, J. R. (2006) · Journal of Cell Science · doi:10.1242/jcs.02908 · Cited by 614
Miller, B. F., Olesen, J. L., Hansen, M., Døssing, S., Crameri, R. M., Welling, R. J., Langberg, H., Flyvbjerg, A., Kjaer, M., Babraj, J. A., et al. (2005) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2005.093690 · Cited by 610
Self-citationOlguín, H. C., & Olwin, B. B. (2004) · Developmental Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.08.015 · Cited by 573
Induction of tenascin in healing wounds
Mackie, E. J., Halfter, W., & Liverani, D. (1988) · The Journal of cell biology · doi:10.1083/jcb.107.6.2757 · Cited by 555
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bergstrom J, 1962, Muscle electrolytes in man, Scan J Clin Lab Med, 14, 511
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–107 of 107
Abbott, W., Brett, A., Cockburn, E., & Clifford, T. (2019) · International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance · doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0385 · Cited by 43
Jensen, J. B., Dollerup, O. L., Møller, A. B., Billeskov, T. B., Dalbram, E., Chubanava, S., Damgaard, M. V., Dellinger, R. W., Trošt, K., Moritz, T., et al. (2022) · JCI Insight · doi:10.1172/jci.insight.158314 · Cited by 39
Street, B., Byrne, C., & Eston, R. (2011) · Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness · doi:10.1016/s1728-869x(12)60007-0 · Cited by 35
Babcock, L., Escano, M., D'Lugos, A., Todd, K., Murach, K., & Luden, N. (2012) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00035.2012 · Cited by 34
Pugh, J. K., Faulkner, S. H., Turner, M. C., & Nimmo, M. A. (2018) · European Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1007/s00421-017-3721-y · Cited by 27
Jameson, T. S. O., Pavis, G. F., Dirks, M. L., Lee, B. P., Abdelrahman, D. R., Murton, A. J., Porter, C., Alamdari, N., Mikus, C. R., Wall, B. T., et al. (2021) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgab106 · Cited by 25
Shamim, B., Camera, D. M., & Whitfield, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.625044 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Crameri, R. M., Aagaard, P., Qvortrup, K., Langberg, H., Olesen, J., & Kjær, M.
- Affiliations
- Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Crameri, R. M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Physiology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 583
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 365-380
- ISSN
- 0022-3751 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7793
- PMC
- PMC2277245
- OpenAlex
- W1552699877
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 19.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Physiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Exercise and Physiological Responses
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Keywords
- delayed onset muscle soreness, eccentric exercise, electrical stimulation, voluntary muscle contraction, satellite cells, desmin, myogenin, CD56, Pax7, tenascin-C, extracellular matrix, muscle contraction strength, rate of force development
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Biopsy, Electric Stimulation, Extracellular Matrix, Humans, Male, Muscle Contraction, Myofibrils, Pain, Vimentin, Biomarkers, Exercise, Muscle, Skeletal, Tenascin, Satellite Cells, Skeletal Muscle
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-02, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-02 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
