MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064652474 · doi:10.1210/en.2002-220623

Glucose Intolerance and Resistin Expression in Rat Offspring Exposed to Ethanol in Utero: Modulation by Postnatal High-Fat Diet

2003· article· en· W2064652474 on OpenAlexaff
Li Chen, B. L. Grégoire Nyomba

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrinology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSyracuse University
KeywordsInternal medicineEndocrinologyOffspringResistinAdiponectinInsulin resistanceBiologyInsulinMedicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-fat diet and intrauterine growth retardation may predispose to obesity, insulin resistance, and type 2 diabetes. Because prenatal ethanol (ETOH) exposure causes intrauterine growth retardation, we investigated its interactions with postnatal high-fat diet on glucose tolerance and adipocyte-derived hormones in the rat offspring. High-fat-fed offspring had increased adiposity, serum leptin, and muscle uncoupling protein-3, but decreased adiponectin mRNA, compared with corresponding chow-fed groups. ETOH-exposed offspring had normal adiponectin, but increased resistin mRNA and protein, compared with controls, regardless of postnatal diet. Skeletal muscle glucose transporter-4 content was decreased after both ETOH exposure and high-fat feeding. Glycemic and insulin responses to an ip glucose challenge were equally increased in non-ETOH-exposed high-fat-fed offspring and in ETOH-exposed chow-fed offspring, with additive effects of ETOH and high-fat diet. Pancreatic insulin content was elevated only in non-ETOH-exposed high-fat-fed offspring. The data suggest that high-fat diet worsens glucose intolerance in offspring of rats exposed to ETOH. Prenatal ETOH exposure and postnatal high-fat diet might cause insulin resistance through separate mechanisms, involving resistin and adiponectin, respectively.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations75
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrinologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207