MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991097601 · doi:10.1503/cjs.044209

Resolution of diabetes mellitus by ileal transposition compared with biliopancreatic diversion in a nonobese animal model of type 2 diabetes

2011· article· en· W1991097601 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiliopancreatic DiversionDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesInternal medicineJejunumInsulinEndocrinologyWeight lossGastroenterologyObesityGastric bypass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) and ileal transposition (IT) effectively induce weight loss and long-term control of type 2 diabetes in morbidly obese individuals. It is unknown whether the control of diabetes is better after IT or after BPD. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of IT and BPD on the control of diabetes in an animal model. METHODS: We performed IT and BPD on 10- to 12-week-old Goto-Kakizaki rats with a spontaneous nonobese model of type 2 diabetes, and we performed a series of detection. The rats were observed for 24 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Animals who underwent IT and BPD demonstrated improved glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity and the secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 compared with the sham-operated animals. Furthermore, IT resulted in a shorter duration of surgery and better postoperative recovery than BPD. CONCLUSION: This study provides strong evidence for the crucial role of the hindgut in the resolution of diabetes after duodenum-jejunum bypass or IT. We confirmed that IT was associated with better postoperative recovery than BPD and had a similar control of diabetes as BPD in nonobese animals with type 2 diabetes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207