MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203717587 · doi:10.1530/joe-21-0166

Maternal sucrose consumption alters behaviour and steroids in adult rat offspring

2021· article· en· W3203717587 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endocrinology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOffspringCorticosteroneSucroseDietary SucroseSugarBasal (medicine)Adipose tissueLactation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal diets can have dramatic effects on the physiology, metabolism, and behaviour of offspring that persist into adulthood. However, the effects of maternal sucrose consumption on offspring remain unclear. Here, female rats were fed either a sucrose diet with a human-relevant level of sucrose (25% of kcal) or a macronutrient-matched, isocaloric control diet before, during, and after pregnancy. After weaning, all offspring were fed a standard low-sucrose rodent chow. We measured indicators of metabolism (weight, adipose, glucose tolerance, and liver lipids) during development and adulthood (16-24 weeks). We also measured food preference and motivation for sugar rewards in adulthood. Finally, in brain regions regulating these behaviours, we measured steroids and transcripts for steroidogenic enzymes, steroid receptors, and dopamine receptors. In male offspring, maternal sucrose intake decreased body mass and visceral adipose tissue, increased preference for high-sucrose and high-fat diets, increased motivation for sugar rewards, and decreased mRNA levels of Cyp17a1 (an androgenic enzyme) in the nucleus accumbens. In female offspring, maternal sucrose intake increased basal corticosterone levels. These data demonstrate the enduring, diverse, and sex-specific effects of maternal sucrose consumption on offspring phenotype.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndocrinologySame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207