High intake of saturated fat, but not polyunsaturated fat, improves survival in heart failure despite persistent mitochondrial defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The impact of a high-fat diet on the failing heart is unclear, and the differences between polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and saturated fat have not been assessed. Here, we compared a standard low-fat diet to high-fat diets enriched with either saturated fat (palmitate and stearate) or PUFA (linoleic and α-linolenic acids) in hamsters with genetic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Male δ-sarcoglycan null Bio TO2 hamsters were fed a standard low-fat diet (12% energy from fat), or high-fat diets (45% fat) comprised of either saturated fat or PUFA. The median survival was increased by the high saturated fat diet (P< 0.01; 278 days with standard diet and 361 days with high saturated fat)), but not with high PUFA (260 days) (n = 30-35/group). Body mass was modestly elevated (∼10%) in both high fat groups. Subgroups evaluated after 24 weeks had similar left ventricular chamber size, function, and mass. Mitochondrial oxidative enzyme activity and the yield of interfibrillar mitochondria (IFM) were decreased to a similar extent in all TO2 groups compared with normal F1B hamsters. Ca(2+)-induced mitochondrial permeability transition pore opening was enhanced in IFM in all TO2 groups compared with F1B hamsters, but to a significantly greater extent in those fed the high PUFA diet compared with the standard or high saturated fat diet. CONCLUSION: These results show that a high intake of saturated fat improves survival in heart failure compared with a high PUFA diet or low-fat diet, despite persistent mitochondrial defects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".