Orexigenic Neuropeptide 26RFa: New Evidence for an Adaptive Profile of Appetite Regulation in Anorexia Nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Restrictive anorexia nervosa (AN) presents an adaptive appetite regulating profile including mainly high levels of ghrelin. Because this adaptive mechanism is not effective on food intake, other appetite-regulating peptides need to be explored. 26RFa is a hypothalamic neuropeptide that stimulates appetite, gonadotropin release, and bone metabolism. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the circadian levels of 26RFa in AN patients compared with healthy subjects, other eating disorders, and constitutional thinness (CT). DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This was a cross-sectional study performed in an endocrine unit and an academic laboratory. INVESTIGATED SUBJECTS: Five groups of age-matched young women were included in the study: 19 restrictive AN, 10 AN with bingeing/purging episodes, 14 with CT, 10 bulimic, and 10 normal-weight controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Twelve-point circadian profiles of plasma 26RFa levels were measured in each subject. RESULTS: Significant circadian variations of 26 RFA were noticed in controls with higher values in the morning and abrupt decrease at noon. Twenty-four-hour mean 26RFa levels were significantly increased in restrictive AN and AN with bingeing/purging episodes (P < 0.001), predominantly in the afternoon and evening when compared with controls. Preprandial rises of 26 RFA were noticed in AN patients. Mean 26RFa levels trend to be higher in CT than in controls (P = 0.06) and significantly lower than in AN. The bulimic patients presented a circadian profile of 26RFa similar to that of controls. CONCLUSION: High levels of circulating 26RFa observed in AN patients might reflect an adaptive mechanism of the organism to promote energy intake and to increase fat stores in response to undernutrition.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".