Insulin‐like actions of vanadium: Potential as a therapeutic agent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vanadium compounds are glucose‐lowering agents that are shown to mimic/enhance most of the metabolic actions of insulin both in vitro and in vivo. Several studies have demonstrated that vanadium treatment lowers plasma glucose levels in experimental models of type 1 diabetes and enhances insulin sensitivity in models of type 2 diabetes. Therefore, these compounds have gained attention as candidates for oral therapy in both types of diabetes. Despite numerous studies, the mechanism(s) by which vanadium mediates its metabolic effects in vivo are still not completely understood. The finding that most of the insulin‐like effects of vanadium in vitro are observed in the presence of high concentrations of vanadium that are not usually achieved in vivo suggests that these effects of vanadium may not have therapeutic relevance. Also, a growing body of evidence from in vivo studies indicates that enhancing glucose disposal in the peripheral tissues is not an adequate explanation for the glucose lowering effects of vanadium in vivo. Accordingly, recent studies suggest that suppression of hepatic glucose production through inhibition of key gluconeogenic enzymes might have an important role in mediating the glucoregulatory effects of vanadium. Several potential sites in the insulin‐signaling pathways, including both receptor and postreceptor mechanisms, have been proposed for the insulin‐like effects of vanadium compounds. In this review, we have attempted to discuss the possible molecular mechanism(s) underlying the metabolic effects of vanadium in vivo. J. Trace Elem. Exp. Med. 16:253–267, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".