Improvement in insulin sensitivity by weight loss does not affect hyperinsulinemia-mediated reduction in total and high molecular weight adiponectin: a MONET study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute hyperinsulinemia reduces total and high molecular weight (HMW) adiponectin levels in humans. Whether an increase in insulin sensitivity (IS) is accompanied by a greater suppressive effect of hyperinsulinemia on adiponectin levels is unknown, however. To clarify the inhibitory role of insulin on adiponectin, total and HMW adiponectin levels were measured during acute hyperinsulinemia before and after an improvement in insulin sensitivity in response to weight loss. Forty-six overweight and obese postmenopausal women were randomized to either 6-month caloric restriction (CR) alone (n = 22), or CR with resistance training (CR+RT, n = 24). IS (hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp) was assessed before and after weight loss. Total and HMW adiponectin levels were measured by ELISA at baseline, 90, 160, and 180 min of each clamp. Relative mean body weight loss was -8.0% ± 4.4% for both groups (CR: -7.7% ± 3.8%; CR+RT: -8.2% ± 5.0%). IS increased significantly, by 18.4% ± 25.3% (CR: 19.3% ± 29.7%; CR+RT: 17.7% ± 21.0%). Before each intervention, total and HMW adiponectin levels in both groups significantly decreased in response to hyperinsulinemia (total: -8.4% ± 19.4%; HMW: -3.2% ± 13.2%). Despite the improvement in IS seen after each intervention, a similar pattern of reduction to that before weight loss was observed in total and HMW adiponectin levels during hyperinsulinemia. These results establish that total and HMW adiponectin levels decline during a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Also, the insulin-sensitizing effect of weight loss via caloric restriction alone or with resistance training does not amplify the reduction in adiponectin levels observed during hyperinsulinemia in healthy postmenopausal women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".