MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346168705 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2001.91.3.1334

Evidence of LPL gene-exercise interaction for body fat and LPL activity: the HERITAGE Family Study

2001· article· en· W2346168705 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Garenc, Louis Përusse, Jean Bergeron, Jacques Gagnon, Ingrid B. Borecki, Arthur S. Leon, James S. Skinner, Jack H. Wilmore, D. C. Rao, Claude Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipid metabolism and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsLipoprotein lipaseEndocrinologyInternal medicineBody mass indexAlleleClassification of obesityObesityLean body massMedicineAdipose tissueBiologyFat massBody weightGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence of a gene-exercise interaction for traits related to body composition is limited. Here, the association between the lipoprotein lipase (LPL) S447X polymorphism and changes in body mass index, fat mass, percent body fat, abdominal visceral fat measured by computed tomography, and post-heparin plasma LPL activity in response to 20 wk of endurance training was investigated in 741 adult white and black subjects. Changes were compared between carriers and noncarriers of the X447 allele after adjustment for the effects of age and pretraining values. No evidence of association was observed in men. However, white women carrying the X447 allele exhibited greater reductions of body mass index (P = 0.01), fat mass (P = 0.01), and percent body fat (P = 0.03); in black women, the carriers exhibited a greater reduction of abdominal visceral fat (P = 0.05) and a greater increase in post-heparin LPL activity (P = 0.02). These results suggest that the LPL S447X polymorphism influences the training-induced changes in body fat and post-heparin LPL activity in women but not in men.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicLipid metabolism and disordersFrench-language works237,207