Synergistic action of olive oil supplementation and dietary restriction on serum lipids and cardiac antioxidant defences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caloric intake is higher than recommended in many populations. Therefore, enhancing olive oil intake alone may not be the most effective way to prevent cardiovascular diseases. The purpose of the present study was to analyse the association of olive oil and dietary restriction on lipid profile and myocardial antioxidant defences. Male Wistar rats (180-200 g, n = 6) were divided into 4 groups: control ad libitum diet (C), 50% restricted diet (DR), fed ad libitum and supplemented with olive oil (3 mL/(kg x day)) (OO), and 50% restricted diet and supplemented with olive oil (DROO). After 30 days of treatments, OO, DR, and DROO groups had increased total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. DR and DROO animals showed decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. DROO had the lowest low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration. Total lipids and triacylglycerols were raised by dietary restriction and diminished by olive oil. OO rats had higher myocardial superoxide dismutase and lower catalase and glutathione peroxidase activities than C rats. DR and DROO showed enhanced cardiac superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase activities from the control. Olive oil supplementation alone improved the lipid profile but was more effective when coupled with dietary restriction. There was a synergistic beneficial action of dietary restriction and olive oil on serum lipids and myocardial antioxidant defences.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".