MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Metformin Abolishes Increased Tumor FDG Uptake Associated With a High‐Energy Diet

2011· article· en· W2969856051 on OpenAlexaff
Haider Mashhedi, Marie‐José Blouin, Mahvash Zakikhani, Stéphanie David, Yunhua Zhao, Miguel Bazile, Elena Birman, Carolyn Algire, Antonio Aliaga, Barry J. Bedell, Michaël Pollak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetforminHyperinsulinemiaInsulinEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineGlucose uptakeInsulin receptorPositron emission tomographyCancerInsulin resistanceNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insulin regulates glucose uptake by normal tissues. Although there is evidence that certain cancers are growth‐stimulated by insulin, the possibility that insulin influences tumor glucose uptake as assessed by 18F‐2‐Deoxy‐2‐Fluoro‐D‐Glucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG‐PET) has not been studied in detail. We present a model of diet‐induced hyperinsulinemia associated with increased insulin receptor activation in neoplastic tissue, and with increased tumor FDG‐PET image intensity. Metformin, which has been associated with reduced cancer burden among diabetics, abolished the increase in insulin levels, tumor insulin receptor activation, and FDG‐PET signal associated with the high‐energy diet, but had no effect on these measurements in mice on a control diet. These findings suggest that for a subset of neoplasms, diet and insulin are variables that affect tumor FDG‐PET results, and have implications for design of clinical trials of metformin as an anti‐neoplastic agent.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer→French-language works237,207→