MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128712552 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0385

Leptin, a tool of parasites?

2012· article· en· W2128712552 on OpenAlexaff
Mare Lõhmus, Sharon Moalem, Mats Björklund

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppetiteBiologyGhrelinLeptinNeuropeptide Y receptorParasite hostingAnorexiaInternal medicineEndocrinologyImmunologyObesityNeuropeptideHormoneGeneticsReceptorMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One common physiological phenomenon that is involved both in infectious and in malignant processes is the reduction in appetite: disease anorexia. An increase in plasma levels of leptin with inflammation is thought to be involved in this process. However, from an evolutionary perspective, in certain cases, it would be more adaptive for an internal parasite to stimulate the appetite of the host instead of causing its suppression. We tested whether a parasitic infection with the larvae of the helminth parasite Taenia taeniaformis affects the levels of appetite-regulating proteins, such as leptin, ghrelin and neuropeptide-Y (NPY) in wild yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis). We found that infected mice had lower plasma levels of leptin and increased levels of NPY than the uninfected subjects. Ghrelin levels were not associated with the occurrence of the parasites; however, these levels strongly correlated with the levels of NPY. This study suggests a possible manipulation by parasitic larvae of appetite regulation in infected subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicRegulation of Appetite and ObesityFrench-language works237,207