MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Weight and lipid‐lowering effects and safety of a herbal formulation in a rat model of obesity

2010· article· en· W3168911945 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Perry, Yanwen Wang, Junzeng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsObesityOverweightMedicineAnti obesityLipid profileAdverse effectBody weightWeight lossInternal medicinePhysiologyEndocrinologyFood scienceCholesterolChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both overweight and obesity increase the risk of developing several serious chronic diseases, as well as lipid‐related conditions, such as hypercholesterolemia. Therefore, the present study was conducted to investigate the effect of a proprietary herbal formulation on body weight, food intake, plasma lipids and liver enzymes, and body fat content and distribution in a rat model of obesity. In this study, we used obese‐resistant (OR) and obeseprone (OP) rats, which were housed individually in cages. All rats were fed a high‐fat (60% energy from fat) diet for 9 weeks. The OR rats were used as a normal control group and one group of OP rats was used as an obesity control. An additional three OP groups were challenged with different dose levels of the herbal formulation. The results demonstrated that the formulation was able to lower body weight, absolute body fat, and triacylglycerides. The results also revealed that the product reduced food intake. There are a growing number of available weight loss products on the marketplace but many exhibit adverse side effects. These side effects can be assessed by measuring the concentration of liver enzymes in the serum. In the present study, the formulation administered did not exhibit any liver toxicity at any of the dose levels. In conclusion, the formulation appears to warrant further examination for possible development as a natural product for weight control and lipid management. Grant Funding Source : CIHR

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentFrench-language works237,207