MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967668820 · doi:10.1172/jci130755

Antiobesogenic effects of central GIPR antagonism

2019· letter· en· W2967668820 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica T.Y. Yue, Tony K.T. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsDiabetes CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health NetworkCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoDiabetes Canada
KeywordsOvernutritionLeptinEndocrinologyInternal medicineHormoneObesityAppetiteAntagonismBiologyMedicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing effective treatments for obesity and related metabolic disease remains a challenge. One logical strategy targets the appetite-regulating actions of gut hormones such as incretins. One of these incretins, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), has garnered much attention as a potential target: however, whether it is beneficial to boost or block the action of GIP to promote weight loss remains an unresolved question. In this issue of the JCI, Kaneko and colleagues show that antagonizing GIP signaling in the CNS enhances the weight-reducing effects of leptin in rodents with diet-induced obesity. The authors posit that an increase in circulating intestinally derived GIP, as a consequence of overnutrition, acts in the brain to impair hypothalamic leptin action, resulting in increased food intake and body weight gain. This research advances the idea that multiple GIP signaling pathways and mechanisms exist in the obese state and offers intriguing new insights into the antiobesogenic consequences of antagonizing brain GIP action.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207