Intranasal glucagon acutely increases energy expenditure without inducing hyperglycaemia in overweight/obese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the acute effects of 0.7 mg intranasal glucagon (ING) vs intranasal placebo (INP) on food intake and resting energy expenditure (REE). METHODS: A single-blind, crossover study was conducted in 19 overweight/obese adults (15 men, 4 women). REE was assessed by indirect calorimetry over 90 minutes, after which appetite was assessed using a visual analogue scale, and ad libitum caloric intake was assessed. Plasma samples were obtained at baseline and at 15-minute intervals post-treatment up to 90 minutes. RESULTS: ING increased total REE (INP 61.5 ± 1.2 kcal vs ING 69.4 ± 1.2 kcal; P = 0.027). There were no between-treatment differences in blood glucose, food intake and appetite. There were no adverse effects. CONCLUSION: ING acutely increases REE without increasing plasma glucose. Longer term studies with multiple daily dosing will establish whether this affects body weight.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".