Assessment of red blood cell glutathione status in insulin resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess red blood cell glutathione from insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant individuals before and after an oral glucose dose. Fifteen healthy, young (24 ± 5 years), nonobese (23 ± 2 kg·m⁻²), insulin-sensitive (ISI composite = 6.0 ± 1.2) individuals and 14 healthy, young (22 ± 2 years), nonobese (24 ± 2 kg·m⁻²), insulin-resistant (ISI composite = 2.7 ± 1.1) individuals received a 75 g oral glucose dose. Blood samples were drawn before and for 2 h after glucose ingestion for red blood cell glutathione and serum glucose and insulin concentrations. Glycemia before and after glucose ingestion was similar between groups (p = 0.17), which suggest that hyperinsulinemia compensated impaired insulin sensitivity. Red blood cell total (p = 0.81), reduced (p = 0.79), and oxidized (p = 0.88) glutathione concentrations were similar between groups under fasting and postprandial conditions. However, in response to glucose, increases in total and reduced glutathione concentrations were found at the end of the 2 h assessment period in both groups (p < 0.05). Direct associations between postprandial glucose response and red blood cell total (r = 0.52; p < 0.05) and oxidized (r = 0.61; p = 0.02) glutathione concentrations were observed only in insulin-sensitive subjects. In conclusion, healthy individuals differing in their degree of insulin resistance showed similar red blood cell glutathione concentrations under non-glucose- and glucose-stimulated conditions.
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) | 0.000 | 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".