MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058096337 · doi:10.1159/000125262

In vitro and in vivo Growth Hormone Responsiveness to Growth Hormone-Releasing Factor in Male and Female Zucker Rats

2008· article· en· W2058096337 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Renier, Pierrette Gaudreau, N Deslauriers, Paul Brazeau

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroendocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsInternal medicineEndocrinologyIn vivoBasal (medicine)Anterior pituitaryPituitary glandHormoneBiologyMedicineInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to determine whether there is an anomaly in the pituitary responsiveness to growth hormone (GH)-releasing factor in the genetically obese rat, we examined the in vitro and in vivo effects of rGRF(1-29)NH2 (GRF) on GH release in male and female Zucker rats. The effect of increasing GRF concentrations (1.56, 6.25, 12.5 25 and 50 pM) was first tested on GH release from freshly perifused anterior pituitary cells. In both sexes, the GH response per one pituitary equivalent to each GRF concentration tested was reduced in the obese group. However, when GH release was expressed as a percent of initial cell GH content, there was no difference between the lean and the obese groups. Furthermore, under pentobarbital anesthesia, GRF was injected intravenously at two consecutive doses of 0.8 and 4.0 microgram/kg body weight in obese and lean animals. In both sexes, the GH response to each dose of GRF tested was decreased in the obese group. Basal serum GH concentrations were similar in male and female obese rats compared to their respective lean siblings. In conclusion, this study demonstrates a decrease of the in vitro and in vivo pituitary response to GRF in the obese Zucker rat, suggesting a possible secondary defect at the pituitary level.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroendocrinologySame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207