MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081061994 · doi:10.1155/2012/572848

The Role of Leptin in Antipsychotic-Induced Weight Gain: Genetic and Non-Genetic Factors

2012· article· en· W2081061994 on OpenAlexaff
Fabio Panariello, Gina Polsinelli, Carol Borlido, Marcellino Monda, Vincenzo De Luca

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obesity · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeptinWeight gainAntipsychoticMedicineLeptin receptorSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)OverweightEndocrinologyObesityInternal medicineHormoneBioinformaticsPsychiatryBody weightBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Schizophrenia is a chronic and disabling mental illness affecting millions of people worldwide. A greater proportion of people with schizophrenia tends to be overweight. Antipsychotic medications have been considered the primary risk factor for obesity in schizophrenia, although the mechanisms by which they increase weight and produce metabolic disturbances are unclear. Several lines of research indicate that leptin could be a good candidate involved in pathways linking antipsychotic treatment and weight gain. Leptin is a circulating hormone released by adipocytes in response to increased fat deposition to regulate body weight, acting through receptors in the hypothalamus. In this work, we reviewed preclinical, clinical, and genetic data in order to infer the potential role played by leptin in antipsychotic-induced weight gain considering two main hypotheses: (1) leptin is an epiphenomenon of weight gain; (2) leptin is a consequence of antipsychotic-induced "leptin-resistance status," causing weight gain.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ObesitySame topicRegulation of Appetite and ObesityFrench-language works237,207