Contribution of the Lean Body Mass to Insulin Resistance in Postmenopausal Women With Visceral Obesity: A Monet Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some insulin-resistant obese postmenopausal (PM) women are characterized by an android body fat distribution type and higher levels of lean body mass (LBM) compared to insulin-sensitive obese PM women. This study investigates the independent contribution of LBM to the detrimental effect of visceral fat (VF) levels on the metabolic profile. One hundred and three PM women (age: 58.0+/-4.9 years) were studied and categorized in four groups on the basis of their VF (higher vs. lower) and lean BMI (LBMI=LBM (kg)/height (m2); higher vs. lower). Measures included: fasting lipids, glucose homeostasis (by euglycemic/hyperinsulinemic clamp technique and 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, fat distribution (by computed tomography (CT) scan), and body composition (by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry). Women in the higher VF/higher LBMI group had lower glucose disposal and higher plasma insulin levels compared to the other groups. They also had higher plasma CRP levels than the women in the lower VF/lower LBMI group. VF was independently associated with insulin levels, measures of glucose disposal, and CRP levels (P<0.05). LBMI was also independently associated with insulin levels, glucose disposal, and CRP levels (P<0.05). Finally, significant interactions were observed between LBMI and VF levels for insulin levels during the OGTT and measures of glucose disposal (P<0.05). In conclusion, VF and LBMI are both independently associated with alterations in glucose homeostasis and CRP levels. The contribution of VF to insulin resistance seems to be exacerbated by increased LBM in PM women.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".