MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069547975 · doi:10.1042/cs20050110

The adipocyte life cycle hypothesis

2005· review· en· W2069547975 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Smith, Maha Al‐Amri, Allan D. Sniderman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Science · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdipose Tissue and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdipocyteLipolysisAdipose tissueBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyTriglycerideCholesterolMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adipocyte life cycle hypothesis states that the metabolic properties of an adipocyte vary predictably during its life cycle: that as an adipocyte matures, it accumulates triacylglycerol (triglyceride) and becomes larger; that the rates of triacylglycerol synthesis and lipolysis are matched within adipocytes and that larger adipocytes, in general, have greater rates of triacylglycerol synthesis and, concurrently, greater rates of lipolysis and, therefore, larger adipocytes have greater rates of transmembrane fatty acid flux; and that the secretion of cytokines can also be related to adipocyte size with larger adipocytes having a more unfavourable profile of cytokine secretion than smaller adipocytes. Adipocyte location is an important modifier of this relationship and the favoured sites of adipocyte proliferation are a function of gender and the position within the life cycle of the organism at which proliferation occurs. The adipocyte life cycle hypothesis posits that the metabolic consequences of obesity depend on whether expansion of adipose tissue is achieved primarily by an increase in adipocyte number or adipocyte size. This hypothesis may explain a variety of previously unanswered clinical puzzles such as the vulnerability of many peoples from South East Asia to the adverse metabolic consequences of obesity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ScienceSame topicAdipose Tissue and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207