MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107046189 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2006.126573

The impact of murine strain and sex on postnatal development after maternal dietary restriction during pregnancy

2007· article· en· W2107046189 on OpenAlexaff
Brian S. Knight, Craig E. Pennell, S. Lee Adamson, Stephen J. Lye

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyStrain (injury)MedicinePhysiologyBiologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to characterize offspring responses to maternal dietary restriction (DR) in two phylogenetically distant strains of mice: A/J and C57BL/6J (B6). Pregnant mice were fed 100% or 70% of ad libitum between 6.5 and 17.5 days (d) gestation. Offspring were fed 100% ad libitum postweaning. All comparisons were made to strain and sex matched controls. Male DR-B6 offspring initially grew slower than controls; however, by 77 d and 182 d they were significantly heavier (P<0.05). Further, they had an increase percentage fat mass (+70%, P<0.01) by 182 d and were glucose intolerant at both 80 d (P<0.001) and 186 d (P<0.05). In contrast, weight, %Fat mass and glucose tolerance in DR-A/J males during postnatal life were not different from controls. Female DR-B6 mice showed catch-up growth during the first 77 d of life; however, their weight, %Fat mass and glucose tolerance were not different from controls at 80 d and 186 d. Although female DR-A/J were heavier than controls at 182 d (P<0.05), their %Fat mass and glucose tolerance were not different from controls at 182 d and 186 d. The observed strain and sex differences offer a unique opportunity to begin to define gene-environment interactions that contribute to developmental origins of health and disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207