Contribution of Abdominal Visceral Obesity and Insulin Resistance to the Cardiovascular Risk Profile of Postmenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the respective contribution of abdominal visceral adipose tissue (AT) accumulation and insulin resistance (IR) to the determination of a comprehensive cardiovascular metabolic risk profile in 108 postmenopausal women not receiving hormone therapy. Insulin sensitivity (M/I) was determined by a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp, and visceral AT area was measured by computed tomography. Median values of visceral AT (133.9 cm(2)) and insulin sensitivity (0.010189 mg . kg(-1) . min(-1) . pmol(-1)) were used to form four subgroups: 1) low visceral AT-low IR (n = 35), 2) low visceral AT-high IR (n = 19), 3) high visceral AT-low IR (n = 19), and 4) high visceral AT-high IR (n = 35). Women with isolated IR (low visceral AT and high IR) were characterized by significantly higher fasting and 2-h glycemia and higher fibrinogen, triglyceride, and VLDL-apolipoprotein (apo)B concentrations than women with low visceral AT and low IR (P < 0.05). The plasma lipid-lipoprotein profile and inflammatory markers were not significantly different between women with high visceral AT and low IR and women with low visceral AT and low IR. Women with high visceral AT and high IR had higher fasting and 2-h glycemia, triglyceride, and VLDL-apoB levels; lower apoAI and HDL(2) cholesterol levels; as well as higher C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 concentrations than women with low visceral AT and low IR (P < 0.05). In addition, 15 of the 35 women (42.9%) in the high visceral AT and high IR group were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, whereas no women were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the group of women with low visceral AT and low IR. These results show that although the presence of high IR in its isolated form is associated with some metabolic alterations, it is the combination of both high visceral AT and high IR that is the most detrimental for the metabolic health in 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".