MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130610962 · doi:10.1155/edr.2001.113

Placental Transfer of Lactate, Glucose and 2‐deoxyglucose in Control and Diabetic Wistar Rats

2001· article· en· W2130610962 on OpenAlexaff
Chris R. Thomas, Beryl B. Oon, C. Lowy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacentaEndocrinologyInternal medicineFetusDeoxyglucosePerfusionStreptozotocinBiologyCompartment (ship)Diabetes mellitusChemistryMedicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Placental transfer of lactate, glucose and 2-deoxyglucose was examined employing the in situ perfused placenta. Control and streptozotocin induced diabetic Wistar rats were infused with [U-14C]-glucose and [3H]-2-deoxyglucose (2DG). The fetal side of the placenta was perfused with a cell free medium and glucose uptake was calculated in the adjacent fetuses. Despite the 5-fold higher maternal plasma glucose concentration in the diabetic dams the calculated fetal glucose metabolic index was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Placental blood flow was reduced in the diabetic animals compared with controls but reduction of transfer of [U-14C]-glucose and [3H]-2-deoxyglucose and endogenously derived [14C]-Lactate to the fetal compartment, could not be accounted for by reduced placental blood flow alone. There was no significant net production or uptake of lactate into the perfusion medium that had perfused the fetal side of the placenta in either group. The plasma lactate levels in the fetuses adjacent to the perfused placenta were found to be higher than in the maternal plasma and significantly higher in the fetuses of the diabetic group compared with control group. In this model the in-situ perfused placenta does not secrete significant quantities of lactate into the fetal compartment in either the control or diabetic group.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes ResearchSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207