A rosiglitazone-induced increase in adiponectin does not improve glucose metabolism in HIV-infected patients with overt lipoatrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy frequently develop changes in body fat distribution and disturbances in glucose metabolism, associated with reduced adiponectin levels. Because adiponectin, principally the high-molecular-weight (HMW) form, has insulin-sensitizing properties, we investigated the effects of an increase in adiponectin on glucose metabolism in HIV-lipodystrophy. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we included HIV-1-infected patients with severe lipoatrophy, with an undetectable viral load and who had received neither protease inhibitors nor stavudine for ≥6 mo. Patients were randomized to rosiglitazone [8 mg daily (n = 8)] to increase adiponectin levels or placebo (n = 5) for 16 wk. Peripheral glucose disposal, glucose production, and lipolysis were measured after an overnight fast and during a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp using stable isotopes. Body composition was assessed by computed tomography and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Although body fat distribution was unaffected, rosiglitazone increased total plasma adiponectin levels by 107% (P < 0.02) and the ratio of HMW to total adiponectin by 73% (P < 0.001). In the placebo group, neither total adiponectin levels (P = 0.62) nor the ratio of HMW to total adiponectin changed (P = 0.94). The marked increase in adiponectin induced by rosiglitazone was not associated with significant changes in basal endogenous glucose production (P = 0.90), basal lipolysis (P = 0.90), insulin-mediated suppression of glucose production (P = 0.17) and lipolysis (P = 0.54) nor with changes in peripheral glucose disposal (P = 0.13). Acknowledging the limited statistical power of our small study, these findings, if confirmed by larger studies, could question the importance of adiponectin in regulating glucose metabolism in HIV-lipodystrophy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".