Fish oil diets do not improve insulin sensitivity and secretion in healthy adult male pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of long-term dietary supplementation of fish oil (n-3 PUFA-rich) in adult male pigs on body condition as well as insulin sensitivity and secretion were examined. Fifteen Duroc boars aged 204.5 (sd 9.4) d (body weight 145.8 (sd 16.8) kg) received daily 2.5 kg basal diet with a supplement of: (1) 62 g hydrogenated animal fat (n 5); (2) 60 g menhaden oil containing 10.8 g DHA and 9.0 g EPA (n 6); (3) 60 g tuna oil containing 19.8 g DHA and 3.9 g EPA (n 4). Rations were balanced to be isoenergetic. After 7 months of treatments, oral glucose and meal tolerance tests were conducted after insertion of a catheter into the jugular vein. Dietary supplementation with n-3 PUFA altered the blood plasma profile: DHA and EPA increased whereas arachidonic acid decreased (P < 0.01). Plasma glucose, insulin and C-peptide responses to oral glucose and the test meal were not affected by treatments (P>0.34). For all animals, total body fat estimated from body weight and back fat thickness was correlated with both beta-cell function (by homeostasis model assessment (HOMA); r+0.63) and insulin sensitivity (index of whole-body insulin sensitivity and by HOMA; r - 0.63 and r+0.66, respectively). In conclusion, long-term supplementation with dietary n-3 PUFA did not affect insulin metabolism in healthy adult male pigs. The relationship between body fat and insulin sensitivity, well documented in human subjects, suggests that the adult male pig could be a promising animal model for studies on insulin metabolism.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".