MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006198455 · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00236.2002

Reduced feeding during water deprivation depends on hydration of the gut

2002· article· en· W2006198455 on OpenAlexaff
G.H.M. Schoorlemmer, Mark D. Evered

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMealThirstIngestionTonicityInternal medicinesedEndocrinologyStomachCecumVeinDehydrationLiquid dietHepatic portal veinPortal veinMedicineChemistryEthanolBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Removal of drinking water at the start of the dark period reduced food intake in freely feeding rats within 45 min. Both first and later meals were smaller during 7.5 h of water deprivation, but meal frequency did not change. Ingestion of a normal-sized meal (3 g) rapidly increased plasma tonicity when drinking water was withheld, but intravenous infusions of hypertonic NaCl causing similar increases in plasma tonicity did not reduce feeding. Feeding during 6 h of water deprivation was restored by slowly infusing the volume of water normally drunk into the stomach, jejunum, or cecum, but not in the vena cava or hepatic portal vein. The infusions did not alter water or electrolyte excretion or affect food intake in rats allowed to drink. We conclude that the inhibition of feeding seen during water deprivation is mediated by a sensor that is located in the gastrointestinal tract or perhaps in the mesenteric veins draining the gut, but not the hepatic portal vein or the liver. In the absence of drinking water, signals from this sensor provoke the early termination of a meal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative PhysiologySame topicRegulation of Appetite and ObesityFrench-language works237,207