Glucose tolerance is affected by visceral adiposity and sex, but not birth weight, in Yucatan miniature pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological studies have linked small birth weight and lack of breastfeeding to type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study aimed to determine if (i) small birth weight promotes and (ii) suckling prevents the development of adiposity and diabetes biomarkers in a Yucatan miniature pig model. At 3 days of age, the intrauterine growth-restricted (IUGR) piglet (n = 6) was paired with a normal weight (NW), same-sex littermate (n = 6) and fed milk replacer for 4 weeks. A sow-fed normal weight littermate (n = 6) was also compared with the NW littermate to assess the effects of suckling. All pigs were fed a standard diet ad libitum for 5 h·day(-1) from week 4. At 9.5 months, pigs underwent intravenous glucose tolerance (IVGTT) and insulin sensitivity tests (IST). At 10 months, tissues were harvested for fat analysis and pancreas histology. IUGR pigs demonstrated compensatory growth before sexual maturity and had greater subcutaneous fat depth; birth weight also negatively correlated with visceral fat content. Visceral and subcutaneous adiposity were greater in females than males. IVGTT and IST outcomes were not different due to birth weight or suckling. However, visceral adiposity was associated with several glucose tolerance outcomes and females were more glucose intolerant due to their greater adiposity. Pancreas insulin content or histology outcomes were not different. This model did not develop markers of type 2 diabetes mellitus because of small birth weight or formula feeding. However, visceral adiposity and sex were associated with glucose intolerance, which is consistent with data in humans.
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 | 0.001 | 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".