Influence of prior exercise and liver glycogen content on the sensitivity of the liver to glucagon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to test the hypothesis that a prior period of exercise is associated with an increase in hepatic glucagon sensitivity. Hepatic glucose production (HGP) was measured in four groups of anesthetized rats infused with glucagon (2 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) iv) over a period of 60 min. Among these groups, two were normally fed and, therefore, had a normal level of liver glycogen (NG). One of these two groups was killed at rest (NG-Re) and the other after a period of exercise (NG-Ex; 60 min of running, 15-26 m/min, 0% grade). The two other groups of rats had a high hepatic glycogen level (HG), which had been increased by a fast-refed diet, and were also killed either at rest (HG-Re) or after exercise (HG-Ex). Plasma glucagon and insulin levels were increased similarly in all four conditions. Glucagon-induced hyperglycemia was higher (P < 0.01) in the HG-Re group than in all other groups. HGP in the HG-Re group was not, however, on the whole more elevated than in the NG-Re group. Exercised rats (NG-Ex and HG-Ex) had higher hyperglycemia, HGP, and glucose utilization than rested rats in the first 10 min of the glucagon infusion. HG-Ex group had the highest HGP throughout the 60-min experiment. It is concluded that hyperglucagonemia-induced HGP is stimulated by a prior period of exercise, suggesting an increased sensitivity of the liver to glucagon during exercise.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".