MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782410567 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2017-0171

Effects of metformin on insulin resistance and metabolic disorders in tumor-bearing rats with advanced cachexia

2018· article· en· W2782410567 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Flaviane de Fátima Silva, Milene Ortiz‐Silva, Winny Beatriz de Souza Galia, Priscila Cassolla, Francemilson Goulart da Silva, Maria Fernanda Rodrigues Graciano, Ângelo Rafael Carpinelli, Helenir Medri de Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade de São PauloFundação AraucáriaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCachexiaInsulin resistanceEndocrinologyInternal medicineMetforminAdipose tissueMedicineWastingType 2 diabetesAnorexiaCancerInsulinDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metformin (MET) is widely used in the correction of insulin (INS) resistance and metabolic abnormalities in type 2 diabetes. However, its effect on INS resistance and metabolic disorders associated with cancer cachexia is not established. We investigated the MET effects, isolated or associated with INS, on INS resistance and metabolic changes induced by Walker-256 tumor in rats with advanced cachexia. MET (500 mg·kg−1, oral) and MET + INS (1.0 IU·kg−1, s.c.) were administered for 12 days, starting on the day of tumor cell inoculation. Tumor-bearing rats showed adipose and muscle mass wasting, body mass loss, anorexia, decreased Akt phosphorylation in retroperitoneal and mesenteric adipose tissue, peripheral INS resistance, hypoinsulinemia, reduced INS content and secretion from pancreatic islets, and also inhibition of glycolysis, gluconeogenesis, and glycogenolysis in liver. MET and MET + INS treatments did not prevent these changes. It can be concluded that treatments with MET and MET + INS did not prevent the adipose and muscle mass wasting and body mass loss of tumor-bearing rats possibly by not improving INS resistance. Therefore, MET, used for the treatment of INS resistance in type 2 diabetes, is not effective in improving INS resistance in the advanced stage of cancer cachexia, evidencing that the drug does not have the same beneficial effect in these 2 diseases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207