MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093349278 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.590369

Understanding Dietary Intervention-Mediated Epigenetic Modifications in Metabolic Diseases

2020· review· en· W3093349278 on OpenAlexafffund
Shaza Asif, Nadya M. Morrow, Erin E. Mulvihill, Kyoung-Han Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDietary Effects on Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDiabetes CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsEpigeneticsDiseaseObesityFatty liverBioinformaticsGlucose homeostasisMedicineBiologyDiabetes mellitusAdipose tissueMetabolic syndromePhysiologyEndocrinologyInsulin resistanceInternal medicineGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global prevalence of metabolic disorders, such as obesity, diabetes and fatty liver disease, is dramatically increasing. Both genetic and environmental factors are well-known contributors to the development of these diseases and therefore, the study of epigenetics can provide additional mechanistic insight. Dietary interventions, including caloric restriction, intermittent fasting or time-restricted feeding, have shown promising improvements in patients' overall metabolic profiles (i.e., reduced body weight, improved glucose homeostasis), and an increasing number of studies have associated these beneficial effects with epigenetic alterations. In this article, we review epigenetic changes involved in both metabolic diseases and dietary interventions in primary metabolic tissues (i.e., adipose, liver, and pancreas) in hopes of elucidating potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for disease prevention and treatment.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations62
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicDietary Effects on HealthFrench-language works237,207