Adiposity and immune-muscle crosstalk in South Asians & Europeans: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
South Asians (SA) are at higher risk of cardiometabolic disorders than Europeans (EU), yet the potential determinants of this risk are poorly understood. We tested the hypotheses that 1) South Asians (SA) have greater muscle inflammation compared to Europeans (EU) at similar fat mass 2) differential regional adiposity in SA compared to EU is associated with enhanced muscle inflammation in SA. This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary academic center in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The study included 29 EU and 26 SA. Quantitative real-time PCR and western blot were used to measure muscle inflammation. Statistical analysis was done using a General Linear Model. Despite having similar macrophage content to EU, SA muscle had lower levels of chemokine CCL2 compared to EU at gene expression (β -1.099, SE β 0.521, p-value 0.04) and protein (0.84 ± 0.69 versus 1.10 ± 0.60, p-value 0.052) levels. SA had more pronounced abdominal and hepatic adiposity, with smaller Intramyocellular lipid particles compared to EU (0.26 ± 0.12 μm(2) versus 0.15 ± 0.06 μm(2), p-value 0.02). In conclusion, CCL2 downregulation in SA may be an attempt to protect muscle against macrophage infiltration, and defects in fatty acid partitioning to muscle may lead to the disproportionate adiposity and adverse cardiometabolic profile in SA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".