MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dose‐ranging effects of c9, t11 vs t10, c12 conjugated linoleic acid on body composition and serum lipids in hamsters

2009· article· en· W152244755 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xiaoran Liu, Andrew P. Wakefield, Shama Joseph, Harold M. Aukema, Peter J.H. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAdvanced Foods and Materials Network
KeywordsConjugated linoleic acidTriglycerideChemistryComposition (language)Linoleic acidLean body massCholesterolInternal medicineFood scienceEndocrinologyBiochemistryBody weightFatty acidBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to examine dose ranging effects of c9, t11 and t10, c12 isomers of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) on body composition and serum lipids in hamsters. Male Golden Syrian hamsters (n=105) were randomized to seven groups that were fed semi‐purified atherogenic diets containing 0.25% cholesterol and 5% dietary fat, and further supplemented with treatments (0 control; 1, 2, 3% of c9, t11; 1, 2, 3% of t10, c12) for 28d. Compared with control, 1% and 3% t10, c12 treatment groups had lower (p=0.0001) food intakes, with all three doses of t10, c12 lowering (p<0.0001) body fat mass (g). Groups fed 1%, 2% t10, c12 treatments possessed higher lean mass (g; p=0.0006) compared to control and 1, 2, 3% c9, t11 treatment groups. However, neither body weights, nor serum HDL or triglyceride levels differed across treatment groups. The 2 and 3% t10, c12 groups exhibited higher (p<0.0001) cholesterol and LDL‐C levels compared to control or other treatment groups. Taken together, 1% t10, c12 CLA is an effective agent to lower fat mass and increase lean mass without altering circulating lipid levels as observed with 2% and 3% t10, c12. This study was sponsored by Advanced Foods and Materials Network, Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicFatty Acid Research and Health→French-language works237,207→