Acute caffeine ingestion does not impair glucose tolerance in persons with tetraplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute caffeine (Caf) ingestion impairs glucose tolerance in able-bodied humans during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The mechanism responsible for this effect remains unclear, however, it is suggested to be due to the accompanying increase in epinephrine concentration. We examined whether or not Caf would elicit a glucose intolerance in persons with tetraplegia (TP) who do not exhibit an increased epinephrine response following Caf ingestion. All TP [n = 14; 9 incomplete (Inc) lesion, 5 complete (Com) lesion] completed two OGTT 1 h after consuming either gelatin (Pl) or Caf capsules (dose = 4 mg/kg). Blood samples were collected at baseline (time = 0 min), 1 h after capsule ingestion (time = 60 min), and every 30 min during the OGTT (time = 90-180 min). Glucose, insulin, proinsulin, and C-peptide responses were similar (P > 0.05) between treatments, demonstrating no effect of Caf on glucose tolerance. This lack of a Caf effect may be due to the low epinephrine concentration that remained unchanged (P > 0.05) throughout all experiments. Interestingly, the Com exhibited a 50% higher glucose response (P 0.05) lower insulin response (vs. Inc), suggesting a more pronounced glucose intolerance within this subgroup. Furthermore, nine TP (5 Com, 4 Inc) had glucose levels of >or= 7.8 mM at the end of the OGTT (time = 180 min), classifying them as glucose intolerant. In summary, acute Caf ingestion does not increase epinephrine concentration or impair glucose tolerance in TP.
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".