MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037140108 · doi:10.1093/gerona/glt090

Increased Metabolic Flexibility and Complexity in a Long-Lived Growth Hormone Insensitive Mouse Model

2013· article· en· W2037140108 on OpenAlexaff
S. Lee Hong, Kenneth Longo, Elahu S. Gosney, John J. Kopchick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Growth hormoneHormoneComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceCell biologyChemistryEndocrinologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to test whether the "loss of the complexity" hypothesis can be applied to compare the metabolic patterns of mouse models with known differences in metabolic and endocrine function as well as life span. Here, we compare the complexity of locomotor activity and metabolic patterns (energy expenditure, VO₂, and respiratory quotient) of the long-lived growth hormone receptor gene deleted mice (GHR(-/-)) and their wild-type littermates. Using approximate entropy as a measure of complexity, we observed greater metabolic complexity, as indicated by greater irregularity in the physiological fluctuations of the GHR(-/-) mice. Further analysis of the data also revealed lower energy costs of locomotor activity and a stronger relationship between locomotor activity and respiratory quotient in the GHR(-/-) mice relative to controls. These findings suggest underlying differences in metabolic modulation in the GHR(-/-) mice revealed especially through measures of complexity of their time-dependent fluctuations.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.330
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 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series ASame topicAdipose Tissue and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207