The contribution of omental adipose tissue to adipokine concentrations in patients with the metabolic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine differences in peripheral vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin-6 (IL6) and cortisol concentrations between patients with both visceral obesity and metabolic syndrome, and lean controls. In a subsample of metabolic patients underwent abdominal surgery, the adipokine concentrations were measured in venous blood from the omentum to determine information on some processes of synthesis. METHODS: Forty-two healthy lean controls and 46 overweight-obese patients with central adiposity and stigmata of metabolic syndrome were studied. In a subsample of 11 metabolic patients undergoing non-bariatric surgery, blood samples from omental and peripheral veins were taken intraoperatively to determine VEGF, IL6 and cortisol concentrations. RESULTS: Median levels (range) of peripheral VEGF and IL6 were higher in patients than in controls [31.5 (3-112) pg/mL vs 21.35 (9-41.9) pg/mL (P < 0.05) and 5.50 (1.40-13) pg/mL vs 1.15 (0.3-1) pg/mL (P < 0.0001)]. On the other hand, concentrations of VEGF and IL6 from the omental and peripheral veins were similar in the surgery sub-group. Peripheral cortisol concentrations were not higher in patients than in controls, nor were omental concentrations different from the peripheral. Omental and peripheral VEGF and cortisol values were correlated, whereas no association was found between omental and peripheral IL6. CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of abdominal obesity, VEGF and IL6 concentrations are increased in the systemic circulation. The contribution of visceral adipose tissue to circulating levels of VEGF and IL6 was modest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".