Comparative analysis of three human adipocyte size measurement methods and their relevance for cardiometabolic risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adipocyte diameters from three measurement methods are similarly associated with adiposity measurements and cardiometabolic variables. METHODS: ). Median adipocyte diameter of the main cell population was determined by collagenase digestion, osmium tetroxide fixation, and histological analysis. Adiposity and cardiometabolic risk factors were assessed. RESULTS: Adipocyte diameter was consistently smaller with formalin fixation than with collagenase digestion, whereas osmium-fixed cells were larger (P < 0.0001, for all). Median adipocyte diameters derived from all methods were intercorrelated (r = 0.46-0.83, P < 0.001 for all). Positive associations were found between adipocyte diameters from all techniques and regional or total adiposity measurements (P < 0.01 for all). Omental adipocyte diameter was positively associated with fasting glucose, insulin, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (r = 0.30-0.52, P < 0.05 for all), with osmium-fixed cell size as a stronger correlate. Osmium-fixed cell diameter was also a better correlate of plasma adiponectin and leptin. CONCLUSIONS: Although measurement techniques generated systematic differences in adipocyte size, associations with adiposity were only slightly affected by the technique. Osmium fixation generated stronger associations with cardiometabolic risk factors than collagenase digestion and histological analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".