Abdominal Obesity, Muscle Composition, and Insulin Resistance in Premenopausal Women
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
The independent relationships between visceral and abdominal sc adipose tissue (AT) depots, muscle composition, and insulin sensitivity were examined in 40 abdominally obese, premenopausal women. Measurements included glucose disposal by euglycemic clamp, muscle composition by computed tomography, abdominal and nonabdominal (e.g. leg) AT by magnetic resonance imaging and cardiovascular fitness. Glucose disposal rates were negatively related to visceral AT mass (r = -0.42, P < 0.01). These observations remained significant (P < 0.01) after control for nonabdominal and abdominal sc AT, muscle attenuation, and peak oxygen uptake. Total, abdominal, or leg sc AT or muscle attenuation was not significantly (P > 0.10) related to glucose disposal. Subdivision of abdominal sc AT into anterior and posterior depots did not alter the observed relationships. Further analysis matched two groups of women for abdominal sc AT but with low and high visceral AT. Women with high visceral AT had lower glucose disposal rates compared with those with low visceral AT (P < 0.05). A similar analysis performed on two groups of women matched for visceral AT but high and low abdominal sc AT revealed no statistically different values for insulin sensitivity (P > 0.10). In conclusion, visceral AT alone is a strong correlate of insulin resistance independent of nonabdominal, abdominal sc AT, muscle composition, and cardiovascular fitness. Subdivision of abdominal sc AT did not provide additional insight into the relationship between abdominal obesity and metabolic risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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