Protein Balance in Nondiabetic Versus Diabetic Patients Undergoing Colon Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical injury provokes a stress response that is thought to be pronounced in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) leading to intensified catabolism. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of perioperative epidural analgesia (EDA) versus patient controlled analgesia (PCA) and amino acid infusion on postoperative metabolism in patients with and without DM2. METHODS: For this study, 12 nondiabetic patients and 12 diabetic patients undergoing colorectal surgery were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 6 per group) receiving either EDA (nondiabetic EDA and diabetic EDA [DEDA group]) or PCA with morphine (nondiabetic PCA and diabetic PCA) for perioperative pain control. Protein and glucose kinetics were measured on the second postoperative day using L-[1-13C]leucine and [6,6-2H2]glucose infusion during a fasted state and a 3-hr fed state with amino acid infusion. RESULTS: The transition from the fasted to fed state suppressed endogenous rate of appearance (Ra) of glucose (P G 0.001) with a distinct effect for the DEDA group (P G 0.001). The Ra of leucine and the endogenous rate of appearance of leucine tended to be lower in the DEDA group(P = 0.056 and P = 0.07). Leucine oxidation was more suppressed in the DEDA group (P = 0.02) and when receiving amino acids(P = 0.001). Diabetic patients achieved a higher protein balance than nondiabetic patients (P = 0.032) and when receiving EDA instead of PCA (P = 0.012) or infusion of amino acids (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: A short-term infusion of amino acids reduced protein breakdown, increased protein synthesis, and rendered protein balance positive. This anabolic effect was pronounced in diabetic patients with EDA compared with nondiabetic patients or PCA, respectively, and prevented an undesirable hyperglycemia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".