Induction of insulin resistance by high‐sucrose feeding does not raise mean arterial blood pressure but impairs haemodynamic responses to insulin in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. This study was undertaken to further investigate the effects of a sucrose-enriched diet on vascular function and insulin sensitivity in rats. 2. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to receive a sucrose- or regular rat chow-diet for 4 weeks. A first group of sucrose- and chow-fed rats was instrumented with pulsed Doppler flow probes and intravascular catheters to determine blood pressure, heart rate, regional blood flows and insulin sensitivity in conscious rats. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp technique. Glucose transport activity was examined in isolated muscles by using the glucose analogue [(3)H]-2-deoxy-D-glucose. A second group of sucrose- and chow-fed rats was used to obtain information regarding nitric oxide synthase (NOS) isozymes protein expression in muscles, and determine endothelin content in vascular tissues isolated from both dietary groups. 3. Sucrose feeding was found to induce insulin resistance, but had no effect on resting blood pressure, heart rate, or regional haemodynamics. This insulin resistance was accompanied by alteration in the vascular responses to insulin. Insulin-mediated skeletal muscle vasodilation was impaired, whereas the mesenteric vasoconstrictor response was potentiated in sucrose-fed rats. A reduction in eNOS protein content in muscle and an increase in vascular endothelin peptide were noted in these animals. Moreover, a reduction in insulin-simulated glucose transport activity was also noted in muscles isolated from sucrose-fed rats. 4. Together these data suggest that a cluster of metabolic and haemodynamic abnormalities occur in response to the intake of simple sugars in rats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".