MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900730935 · doi:10.1111/jdi.12978

Glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide deficiency reduced fat accumulation and insulin resistance, but deteriorated bone loss in ovariectomized mice

2018· article· en· W2900730935 on OpenAlexaff
Satoko Shimazu‐Kuwahara, Yoshinori Kanemaru, Norio Harada, Eri Ikeguchi, Yohei Ueda, Shunsuke Yamane, Yuki Murata, Akihiro Yasoda, Timothy J. Kieffer, Nobuya Inagaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Investigation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsOvariectomized ratMedicineInsulin resistanceEndocrinologyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusInsulinType 2 diabetesEstrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Given the established roles of glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) in promoting fat storage and bone formation, we assessed the contribution of GIP to obesity and osteopenia in ovariectomized mice with a gene encoding green fluorescent protein (GFP) inserted into the GIP locus, in which GIP was either reduced (GIP gfp/+ ) or absent (GIP gfp/gfp ). In GIP gfp/gfp mice, weight gain, subcutaneous and visceral fat mass were reduced, and glucose intolerance was improved compared with wild‐type mice with the same magnitude of insulin responses. Cancellous bone mineral density and bone cortical thickness were reduced in GIP gfp/gfp mice compared with wild‐type mice. In GIP gfp/+ mice, weight gain, glucose intolerance and cancellous bone mineral density were not different from that of wild‐type mice. These results indicate that the total elimination of GIP ameliorates weight gain and adiposity in ovariectomized mice, but it enhances osteopenia, particularly in cancellous bone by partly suppressing bone formation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes InvestigationSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207