Tesamorelin improves fat quality independent of changes in fat quantity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fat quality and quantity may affect health similarly or differently. Fat quality can be assessed by measuring fat density on CT scan (greater density = smaller, higher quality adipocytes). We assessed the effects of tesamorelin, a growth hormone-releasing hormone analogue that reduces visceral fat (VAT) quantity in some people living with HIV (PWH), on fat density. DESIGN: Participants from two completed, placebo-controlled, randomized trials of tesamorelin for central adiposity treatment in PWH were included if they had either a clinical response to tesamorelin (VAT decrease ≥8%, ≈70% of participants) or were placebo-treated. METHODS: CT VAT and subcutaneous fat (SAT) density (Hounsfield Units, HU) were measured by a central blinded reader. RESULTS: Participants (193 responders, 148 placebo) were 87% male and 83% white. Baseline characteristics were similar across arms, including VAT (-91 HU both arms, P = 0.80) and SAT density (-94 HU tesamorelin, -95 HU placebo, P = 0.29). Over 26 weeks, mean (SD) VAT and SAT density increased in tesamorelin-treated participants only [VAT: +6.2 (8.7) HU tesamorelin, +0.3 (4.2) HU placebo, P < 0.0001; SAT: +4.0 (8.7) HU tesamorelin, +0.3 (4.8) HU placebo, P < 0.0001]. The tesamorelin effects persisted after controlling for baseline VAT or SAT HU and area, and VAT [+2.3 HU, 95% confidence interval (4.5-7.3), P = 0.001) or SAT (+3.5 HU, 95% confidence interval (2.3-4.7), P < 0.001] area change. CONCLUSION: In PWH with central adiposity who experienced VAT quantity reductions on tesamorelin, VAT and SAT density increased independent of changes in fat quantity, suggesting that tesamorelin also improves VAT and SAT quality in this group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".