Metabolic Characteristics and Body Composition in a Model of Anti‐Obese Rats (Lou/C)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate some features of the metabolic profile and the body composition of male Lou/C rats and to examine whether these characteristics are strictly related to the food-intake reduction. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Fourteen-week-old male Lou/C rats were compared with age-matched male Wistar rats fed ad libitum (WAL) and another group of male Wistar rats whose food was chronically restricted (WFR) to the same amount as the Lou/C rats from weeks 3 to 14. RESULTS: Food intake and body weight were significantly (p < 0.01) reduced in Lou/C compared with WAL rats, whereas these reductions were perfectly reproduced in WFR rats. Lou/C rats demonstrated lower relative weights of retroperitoneal (0.97 +/- 0.07 vs. 1.67 +/- 0.16 and 1.88 +/- 0.15 g/100 g body) and epididymal (1.01 +/- 0.02 vs. 1.62 +/- 0.12 and 1.80 +/- 0.11 g/100g body) fat depots than did the two other groups and no decrease in the percentage of carcass proteins, which was observed in the WFR rats. In addition, compared with the WFR group, the Lou/C rats showed lower plasma glucose levels (3.65 +/- 0.14 vs. 4.72 +/- 0.15 and 4.7 +/- 0.19 mM); a tendency (p < 0.1) for lower liver glycogen concentrations; and similar levels of glycerol, free fatty acids, and beta-hydroxybutyrate concentrations. Epinephrine and the relative weight of the adrenal glands were significantly (p < 0.01) lower in the Lou/C rats than in the WAL rats and the two other groups, respectively. DISCUSSION: The ability of the Lou/C rats to accumulate less body fat than their equally food-restricted Wistar counterparts (WFR) suggests a difference in basal metabolism in this strain of rats that resembles obesity-resistant rats.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".