MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Exploring the anti‐diabetic effect of duodenojejunal bypass: a novel mouse model

2009· article· en· W225152367 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Gregory Woods, Jingming Wang, Rennian Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsDuodenumJejunumMedicineDiabetes mellitusGlucose homeostasisInternal medicineInsulinBeta cellEndocrinologyIleumPylorusPancreasGastroenterologyIsletStomachInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obese patients with Type 2 diabetes who underwent bariatric surgery reverted to normal blood glucose and insulin levels and developed a dramatic increase in insulin sensitivity without continued use of diabetic medication. The mechanisms involved in this reversal are not known although the data suggest that alteration of factors such as glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) produced by the upper intestinal tract is involved. Currently, no studies have focused on a non‐diabetic DJB animal model to determine its importance of the duodenum and proximal jejunum in maintaining normal glucose homeostasis. Normal C57BL/6J mice underwent duodenojejunal bypass (DJB), a surgery in which the distal end of the jejunum was connected to a small portion of the duodenum just distal to pylorus and bilopancreatic secretions where directed to the distal jejunum. Normal‐fed mice undergoing DJB display diabetic‐like pancreatic morphology. These mice showed a decrease in the percent area of beta‐cells (33%) as well as a decrease in beta‐cell proliferation (50%) compared to sham‐operated controls. However, surviving beta‐cells showed similar levels of pancreatic duodenal homeobox‐1 (Pdx‐1), GLUT‐2 expression, and similar beta‐cell size between DJB and sham‐operated groups. These results suggest the importance of the duodenum in maintaining an anti‐diabetic state in the normal mouse. Funded by Lawson Health Research Institute. Grant Funding Source Lawson Health Research Institute

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→