Contribution of Visceral Adiposity to the Exaggerated Postprandial Lipemia of Men With Impaired Glucose Tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) has been associated with alterations in numerous coronary heart disease risk factors, including postprandial hyperlipidemia. An excess visceral adipose tissue accumulation is also predictive of IGT and of an exaggerated postprandial lipemia. The objective of the present study was therefore to compare the respective contributions of visceral adipose tissue accumulation versus IGT with the variation in postprandial lipemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Potential differences in postprandial triglyceride (TG)-rich lipoprotein (TRL) levels following a standardized breakfast with a high fat content were examined among men characterized by normal glucose tolerance (NGT) or IGT. Sixty-seven men were classified according to their glucose tolerance status (<7.8 mmol/l [NGT] or between 7.8 and 11.1 mmol/l [IGT] 2 h after a 75-g oral glucose test). RESULTS: Men with IGT showed the highest TRL-TG concentrations (P < 0.05) at the 4-, 6-, and 8-h time points compared with men with NGT. These higher postprandial TRL-TG levels among men with IGT were also accompanied by a greater postprandial TG total area under the incremental curve in all TRL fractions (large, medium, and small) (P < 0.05). Furthermore, subjects characterized by IGT had also the highest visceral adipose tissue accumulation (P < 0.009). When subgroups of IGT and NGT men were individually matched (n = 11) for similar visceral adipose tissue accumulation, no significant difference was found in postprandial responses of all TRL-TG fractions between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence that visceral adipose tissue accumulation is an important factor involved in the deterioration of postprandial lipemia noted among men with IGT.
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) | 0.001 | 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".