MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185525431 · doi:10.3390/cells10071805

Diet-Induced Models of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: Food for Thought on Sugar, Fat, and Cholesterol

2021· review· en· W3185525431 on OpenAlexafffund
James Eng, Jennifer L. Estall

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFatty liverDiseaseFructoseAdded sugarDietary SucroseMedicineCholesterolSteatohepatitisObesityBioinformaticsInternal medicinePhysiologyEndocrinologyBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects approximately 1 in 4 people worldwide and is a major burden to health care systems. A major concern in NAFLD research is lack of confidence in pre-clinical animal models, raising questions regarding translation to humans. Recently, there has been renewed interest in creating dietary models of NAFLD with higher similarity to human diets in hopes to better recapitulate disease pathology. This review summarizes recent research comparing individual roles of major dietary components to NAFLD and addresses common misconceptions surrounding frequently used diet-based NAFLD models. We discuss the effects of glucose, fructose, and sucrose on the liver, and how solid vs. liquid sugar differ in promoting disease. We consider studies on dosages of fat and cholesterol needed to promote NAFLD versus NASH, and discuss important considerations when choosing control diets, mouse strains, and diet duration. Lastly, we provide our recommendations on amount and type of sugar, fat, and cholesterol to include when modelling diet-induced NAFLD/NASH in mice.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations129
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207