MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120961709 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00997

Orexin-A controls sympathetic activity and eating behavior

2014· review· en· W2120961709 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Messina, Carmine Dalia, Domenico Tafuri, Vincenzo Monda, Filomena Palmieri, Angelo Russo, Saverio De Blasio, Antonietta Messina, Vincenzo De Luca, Sergio Chieffi, Marcellino Monda

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrexinWakefulnessOrexin-AHypothalamusNeuropeptideBrainstemEnergy homeostasisEndocrinologyInternal medicineSleep (system call)Lateral hypothalamusHomeostasisFood intakeNeuropeptide Y receptorPsychologySympathetic nervous systemNeuroscienceBlood pressureMedicineObesityElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is extremely important for the health to understand the regulatory mechanisms of energy expenditure. These regulatory mechanisms play a central role in the pathogenesis of body weight alteration. The hypothalamus integrates nutritional information derived from all peripheral organs. This region of the brain controls hormonal secretions and neural pathways of the brainstem. Orexin-A is a hypothalamic neuropeptide involved in the regulation of feeding behavior, sleep-wakefulness rhythm, and neuroendocrine homeostasis. This neuropeptide is involved in the control of the sympathetic activation, blood pressure, metabolic status, and blood glucose level. This minireview focuses on relationship between the sympathetic nervous system and orexin-A in the control of eating behavior and energy expenditure. The "thermoregulatory hypothesis" of food intake is analyzed, underlining the role played by orexin-A in the control of food intake related to body temperature. Furthermore, the paradoxical eating behavior induced orexin-A is illustrated in this minireview.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.336 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations96
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207