Fasting Ghrelin Levels in Physically Active Women: Relationship with Menstrual Disturbances and Metabolic Hormones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent findings support a role for ghrelin in the regulation of energy homeostasis and possibly reproductive function. The primary purpose of this study was to test whether differences in fasting ghrelin levels exist in exercising women with differing menstrual and metabolic status. Menstrual cycle status was defined as sedentary ovulatory (SedOvul; n = 10, cycles = 26), exercising ovulatory (ExOvul; n = 11, cycles = 22), exercising luteal phase defect/anovulatory (ExLPD/Anov; n = 11, cycle = 27), and exercising amenorrheic (ExAmen; n = 8, cycle = 16). Subjects were 27.7 +/- 1.2 yr of age, weighed 60.2 +/- 3.3 kg, and had menstrual cycle lengths of 28.4 +/- 0.9 d. Blood was collected during the follicular phase (d 2-9) of each menstrual cycle and analyzed for total ghrelin, insulin, total T(3), and leptin. Ghrelin was significantly elevated by approximately 85% in the ExAmen category (725.5 +/- 40.8 pmol/liter) when compared with all other categories (P < 0.001; SedOvul = 393.6 +/- 32.0 pmol/liter, ExOvul = 418.9 +/- 34.8 pmol/liter, and ExLPD/Anov = 381.1 +/- 314 pmol/liter). Leptin levels were lower in all groups vs. SedOvul (P < 0.001). Insulin was lower in both the ExLPD/Anov and ExAmen categories vs. SedOvul and ExOvul (P < 0.018), and total T(3) was lower in ExAmen compared with all other groups (P < 0.001), with concentrations in ExLPD/Anov and ExOvul exceeding those in SedOvul (P < 0.05). These data clearly indicate a metabolic hormonal profile consistent with chronic energy deficiency in exercising women across a range in menstrual status and introduces ghrelin as a potential supplementary indicator that uniquely discriminates amenorrheic athletes from athletes with other menstrual disturbances.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".