MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2492505205 · doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.137646

Distinct lipid profiles predict improved glycemic control in obese, nondiabetic patients after a low-caloric diet intervention: the Diet, Obesity and Genes randomized trial

2016· article· en· W2492505205 on OpenAlexaff
Armand Valsesia, Wim H. M. Saris, Arne Astrup, Jörg Hager, Mojgan Masoodi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSixth Framework ProgrammeEuropean Commission
KeywordsMedicineWeight lossGlycemicInsulin resistanceInternal medicineBody mass indexEndocrinologyWeight changeGlycemic indexObesityType 2 diabetesInsulinLeptinLipid profileGlycemic loadDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An aim of weight loss is to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in obese subjects. However, the relation with long-term glycemic improvement remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the changes in lipid composition during weight loss and their association with long-term glycemic improvement. DESIGN: We investigated the plasma lipidome of 383 obese, nondiabetic patients within a randomized, controlled dietary intervention in 8 European countries at baseline, after an 8-wk low-caloric diet (LCD) (800-1000 kcal/d), and after 6 mo of weight maintenance. RESULTS: After weight loss, a lipid signature identified 2 groups of patients who were comparable at baseline but who differed in their capacities to lose weight and improve glycemic control. Six months after the LCD, one group had significant glycemic improvement [homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) mean change: -0.92; 95% CI: -1.17, -0.67)]. The other group showed no improvement in glycemic control (HOMA-IR mean change: -0.26; 95% CI: -0.64, 0.13). These differences were sustained for ≥1 y after the LCD. The same conclusions were obtained with other endpoints (Matsuda index and fasting insulin and glucose concentrations). Significant differences between the 2 groups were shown in leptin gene expression in adipose tissue biopsies. Significant differences were also observed in weight-related endpoints (body mass index, weight, and fat mass). The lipid signature allowed prediction of which subjects would be considered to be insulin resistant after 6 mo of weight maintenance [validation's receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC): 71%; 95% CI: 62%, 81%]. This model outperformed a clinical data-only model (validation's ROC AUC: 61%; 95% CI: 50%, 71%; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we report a lipid signature of LCD success (for weight and glycemic outcome) in obese, nondiabetic patients. Lipid changes during an 8-wk LCD allowed us to predict insulin-resistant patients after 6 mo of weight maintenance. The determination of the lipid composition during an LCD enables the identification of nonresponders and may help clinicians manage metabolic outcomes with further intervention, thereby improving the long-term outcome and preventing T2D. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00390637.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicRegulation of Appetite and ObesityFrench-language works237,207