Insulin Inhibits and Oral Sucrose Increases Neointimal Growth after Arterial Injury in Rats
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In our previous studies, rats on insulin treatment (5 U/day) and oral glucose to avoid hypoglycemia had reduced neointimal growth after arterial injury. However, plasma glucose in the insulin-treated rats was lower than normal and the effect of oral glucose remained undetermined. In this study, the effects of normoglycemic hyperinsulinemia and oral glucose or sucrose were investigated in the same model. METHODS: Rats were divided into 6 groups: (1) control implants and tap water; (2) insulin implants (5 U/day) and oral glucose + i.p. glucose to avoid any glucose lowering; (3) insulin implants (4 U/day) and oral glucose; (4) insulin implants (4 U/day) and oral sucrose; (5) control implants and oral glucose, and (6) control implants and oral sucrose. RESULTS: Insulin treatment at both doses reduced neointimal area (p < 0.001) 14 days after injury in rats receiving oral glucose but not in those receiving oral sucrose. Oral glucose, without insulin, had no effect on neointimal formation, whereas oral sucrose increased neointimal growth (p < 0.05). Oral sucrose (p < 0.05) but not oral glucose decreased insulin sensitivity measured with hyperinsulinemic clamps. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Insulin decreases neointimal growth after arterial injury independent of glucose-lowering or oral glucose administration and (2) oral sucrose per se affects neointimal growth.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it