MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138404588 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00238.2002

Relationship among hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, and hypertension is dependent on sex

2002· article· en· W2138404588 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Galipeau, Linfu Yao, John H. McNeill

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperinsulinemiaInternal medicineEndocrinologyInsulin resistanceInsulinBlood pressureMedicineInsulin sensitivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance have been linked to hypertension; however, the influence of sex on this relationship has not been well studied. The purpose of this experiment was to compare the effects of chronic insulin treatment on insulin sensitivity and blood pressure in male and female rats. Male and female Wistar rats were treated with insulin (2 U/day) via subcutaneous sustained release implants for 5 wk. Systolic blood pressure was measured via the tail-cuff method before and after treatment, and insulin sensitivity was assessed with an oral glucose tolerance test. The insulin sensitivity of female rats was 4.5-fold greater than male rats. Chronic insulin treatment impaired insulin sensitivity in both sexes; however, this occurred to a greater degree in male rats. Blood pressure increased in male rats treated with insulin only. The results demonstrate that hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance are associated with hypertension in male rats only. Therefore, the link between these conditions appears to depend on sex.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations51
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207