Intraoperative protein sparing with glucose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the hypothesis that glucose infusion inhibits amino acid oxidation during colorectal surgery. We randomly allocated 14 patients to receive intravenous glucose at 2 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1) (glucose group) starting with the surgical incision or an equivalent amount of normal saline 0.9% (control group). The primary endpoint was whole body leucine oxidation; secondary endpoints were leucine rate of appearance and nonoxidative leucine disposal as determined by a stable isotope tracer technique (L-[1-(13)C]leucine). Circulating concentrations of glucose, lactate, insulin, glucagon, and cortisol were measured before and after 2 h of surgery. Leucine rate of appearance, an estimate of protein breakdown, and nonoxidative leucine disposal, an estimate of protein synthesis, decreased in both groups during surgery (P < 0.05). Leucine oxidation intraoperatively decreased from 13 +/- 3 to 4 +/- 3 micromol x kg(-1) x h(-1) in the glucose group (P < 0.05 vs. control group) whereas it remained unchanged in the control group. Hyperglycemia during surgery was more pronounced in patients receiving glucose (9.7 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, P < 0.05 vs. control group) than in patients receiving normal saline (7.1 +/- 1.0 mmol/l). The administration of glucose caused an increase in the circulating concentration of insulin (P < 0.05) resulting in a lower glucagon/insulin quotient than in the control group (P < 0.05). Intraoperative plasma cortisol concentrations increased in both groups (P < 0.05), whereas plasma concentrations of lactate and glucagon did not change. The provision of small amounts of glucose was associated with a decrease in amino acid oxidation during colorectal surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".