Adiponectin in a Native Canadian Population Experiencing Rapid Epidemiological Transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adiponectin is emerging as an important protein in the etiology of obesity and related metabolic disorders. The objectives of this study were to determine cross-sectional and prospective associations of adiponectin concentration with adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in a population-based study of Native Canadians, a group experiencing dramatic increases in diabetes and CVD. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: During the 1993-1995 baseline survey, samples for glucose, insulin, adiponectin, and lipids were collected after an overnight fast. Waist circumference and percent body fat were measured, and a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test was administered: n = 505 with normal glucose tolerance (NGT), 74 with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and 149 with diabetes. In 1998, 95 high-risk subjects, defined as those who, at baseline, had either IGT or NGT with an elevated 2-h glucose concentration (>/==" BORDER="0">7.0 mmol/l), participated in a follow-up examination using the protocol used at baseline. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates including percent body fat and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), adiponectin concentrations were significantly lower among men versus women (10.8 vs. 15.0 micro g/ml, P < 0.0001) and among diabetic versus NGT subjects (11.1 vs. 13.1 micro g/ml, P < 0.05). Adiponectin was inversely correlated with percent body fat, waist circumference, HOMA-IR, and triglyceride and positively correlated with HDL (r = |0.30|-|0.44|, all P < 0.0001). In multivariate linear regression analysis in nondiabetic subjects, HDL and percent body fat were significantly related to adiponectin variation among both men and women (R(2) = 28-29%). Factor analysis returned three underlying factors among these variables, with adiponectin loading on the second factor along with insulin, waist circumference, triglyceride, and HDL. In the follow-up study, higher adiponectin at baseline was significantly associated with increases in HDL (r = 0.24, P = 0.03) and decreases in HOMA-IR (r = -0.29, P = 0.009) after adjustment for covariates, including age, adiposity, and diabetes status at baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These population-based findings support the hypothesis that low circulating levels of adiponectin are an important determinant of risk of CVD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".