Circulating IL‐6 Concentrations and Abdominal Adipocyte Isoproterenol‐stimulated Lipolysis in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine the association of plasma interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) concentrations with adiposity and fat cell metabolism in women. Methods and Procedures: Omental (OM) and subcutaneous (SC) adipose tissue samples were obtained from 48 healthy women (age: 47 ± 5 years, BMI: 26.9 ± 5.3 kg/m2) undergoing gynecological surgeries. Total and visceral adiposity were assessed by dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry and computed tomography, respectively. Measures of adipocyte lipolysis (basal, isoproterenol‐, forskolin‐, and cyclic dibutyryl‐adenosine monophosphate (AMP)‐stimulated) and adipose tissue lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity were obtained. Plasma IL‐6 was measured by radioimmunoassay. Results: Plasma IL‐6 was positively correlated with total body fat mass (r = 0.32, P < 0.05), SC adipose tissue area (r = 0.35, P < 0.05), SC adipocyte diameter (r = 0.30, P < 0.05), and a trend was observed with visceral adipose tissue area (r = 0.20, P < 0.07). Plasma IL‐6 was positively correlated with glycerol released in response to isoproterenol (10−5 to 10−8 mol/l) by isolated SC (0.31 ≤ r ≤ 0.65, P < 0.05) and OM (0.36 ≤ r ≤ 0.40, P < 0.02) adipocytes, independent of menopausal status. No correlation was found with LPL activity. A subsample of women with high plasma IL‐6 (n = 10) was matched with women with low plasma IL‐6 (n = 10) for total body fat mass. OM adipocyte glycerol release in response to isoproterenol (10−5 to 10−8 mol/l) was higher in the subsample of women with elevated plasma IL‐6 (P ≤ 0.07). Discussion: We observed that OM lipolysis was significantly higher in women with elevated plasma IL‐6 for a similar body fat mass and menopausal status. These results suggest that higher circulating IL‐6 concentrations are associated with increased isoproterenol‐stimulated lipolysis especially in OM abdominal adipocytes in 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".