MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010344502 · doi:10.1530/rep-13-0426

Food restriction during lactation suppresses <i>Kiss1</i> mRNA expression and kisspeptin-stimulated LH release in rats

2014· article· en· W2010344502 on OpenAlexafffund
Sharon R. Ladyman, Barbara Woodside

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormones
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Virginia
KeywordsKisspeptinLactationEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiologyArcuate nucleusHypothalamusPregnancyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the numerous physiological changes that accompany lactation is the suppression of the reproductive axis. The aim of this study was to investigate a possible role for the kisspeptin system in the restoration of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis during late lactation in rats using a food restriction model that allows manipulation of the duration of lactational anovulation. Kiss1 mRNA expression and kisspeptin-immunoreactive cell counts were examined in both food-restricted dams and ad libitum (AL)-fed dams across late lactation when LH concentrations begin to increase. In the arcuate nucleus, Kiss1 mRNA expression and kisspeptin-positive cell counts were suppressed during late lactation. In the anteroventral periventricular (AVPV), day 15 food-restricted dams had significantly lower AVPV Kiss1 mRNA expression and a decreased LH response to exogenous kisspeptin compared with the AL-fed dams. Following 5 days of ad libitum food intake, these values were restored to levels similar to those in dams that had been fed ad libitum throughout lactation. In conclusion, this study shows that delayed restoration of the reproductive axis due to food restriction is associated with a decrease in kisspeptin sensitivity and low AVPV Kiss1 mRNA in late lactation.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductionSame topicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormonesFrench-language works237,207