MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144550198 · doi:10.1017/s0007114510003788

Improvements in LDL particle size and distribution by short-term alternate day modified fasting in obese adults

2010· article· en· W2144550198 on OpenAlexaff
Krista A Varady, Surabhi Bhutani, Monica C Klempel, Benoı̂t Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal Of Nutrition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
KeywordsInternal medicineWaistParticle sizeEndocrinologyAnimal scienceMedicineObesityCholesterolBody weightParticle-size distributionLdl cholesterolChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternate day modified fasting (ADMF) beneficially modulates several indicators of CHD risk, but its effects on LDL particle size have never been tested. Accordingly, we examined the effects of ADMF on LDL particle size and distribution in obese adults. Sixteen obese subjects participated in a 10-week trial with three consecutive phases: (1) 2-week control phase; (2) 4-week ADMF controlled feeding phase; (3) 4-week ADMF self-selected feeding phase. After 8 weeks of diet, body weight and waist circumference were reduced (P < 0·05) by 5·6 (sem 0·9) kg and 4·0 (sem 0·9) cm, respectively. LDL-cholesterol and TAG concentrations decreased (P < 0·05) by 25 (sem 10) % and 32 (sem 6) %, respectively. Peak LDL particle size increased (P < 0·05) from 266 (sem 1) to 268 (sem 1) Å. Additionally, the proportion of small LDL particles decreased (P < 0·05) from 13 (sem 2) % to 9 (sem 3) %, while the proportion of large LDL particles increased (P < 0·05) from 68 (sem 4) % to 76 (sem 4) % post-treatment. These findings suggest that ADMF is an effective diet strategy for increasing LDL particle size and decreasing the proportion of small, dense LDL particles in obese adults.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal Of NutritionSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207