MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048783603 · doi:10.1159/000276991

Dopamine D2 Receptor Genotype (C957T) and Habitual Consumption of Sugars in a Free-Living Population of Men and Women

2009· article· en· W2048783603 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Eny, Paul Corey, Ahmed El‐Sohemy

Bibliographic record

VenueLifestyle Genomics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfoundingDopamine receptor D2PopulationGenotypeSugarBiologyEndocrinologyMedicineAnimal scienceInternal medicineGeneticsDopamineGeneFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) has been implicated in modulating the rewarding effects of foods high in sugar. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a variation in the DRD2 gene affects habitual consumption of sugars in a free-living population. METHODS: Caucasian men (n = 96) and women (n = 217) 20-29 years of age completed a 1-month food frequency questionnaire and were genotyped for the C957T polymorphism in the DRD2 gene. Analyses of covariance with post-hoc Tukey tests were used to compare nutrient intakes between genotypes adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Among men, consumption of sucrose was 60 +/- 6, 48 +/- 4, and 39 +/- 5 g/day for those with the CC, CT and TT genotypes, respectively, with a significant difference between the homozygotes (p = 0.03), suggesting an additive mode of inheritance. Among women, sucrose consumption was 42 +/- 4, 53 +/- 2, and 44 +/- 4 g/day for the CC, CT and TT genotypes, respectively, with CC and CT differing significantly (p = 0.02), suggesting a partial heterosis mode of inheritance. No differences were observed for protein or fat. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that genetic variation in DRD2 influences food selection and may explain some of the interindividual differences in sugar consumption.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifestyle GenomicsSame topicDiet, Metabolism, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207