Effect of enteral vs. parenteral glucose delivery on initial splanchnic glucose uptake in nondiabetic humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine if enteral delivery of glucose influences splanchnic glucose metabolism, 10 subjects were studied when glucose was either infused into the duodenum at a rate of 22 micromol x kg(-1) x min(-1) and supplemental glucose given intravenously or when all glucose was infused intravenously while saline was infused intraduodenally. Hormone secretion was inhibited with somatostatin, and glucose (approximately 8.5 mmol/l) and insulin (approximately 450 pmol/l) were maintained at constant but elevated levels. Intravenously infused [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose was used to trace the systemic appearance of intraduodenally infused [3-(3)H]glucose, whereas UDP-glucose flux (an index of hepatic glycogen synthesis) was measured using the acetaminophen glucuronide method. Despite differences in the route of glucose delivery, glucose production (3.5 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.3 +/- 1.0 micromol x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and glucose disappearance (78.9 +/- 5.7 vs. 85.0 +/- 7.2 micromol x kg(-1) x min(-1)) were comparable on intraduodenal and intravenous study days. Initial splanchnic glucose extraction (17.5 +/- 4.4 vs. 14.5 +/- 2.9%) and hepatic UDP-glucose flux (9.0 +/- 2.0 vs. 10.3 +/- 1.5 micromol x kg(-1) x min(-1)) also did not differ on the intraduodenal and intravenous study days. These data argue against the existence of an "enteric" factor that directly (i.e., independently of circulating hormone concentrations) enhances splanchnic glucose uptake or hepatic glycogen synthesis in nondiabetic 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".