Sex Differences in the Development of Hyperglycemia in Rodent Models of Diabetes and Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mounting pre-clinical and clinical evidence demonstrates that sex plays a role in the incidence and pathogenesis of diabetes. Generally, diabetes is more prevalent in middle-aged men than in age-matched women. Similarly, in most rodent models of diabetes, male rodents exhibit a more severe diabetes phenotype and a greater incidence of diabetes than their female counterparts. However, the underlying mechanisms by which sex modulates disease progression and outcome are poorly understood. Thus, rodent models of diabetes that exhibit sex differences, like those observed in humans are valuable tools for investigating the interaction between sex and biological processes. This review summarizes the pathogenesis of diabetes in several rodent models of type 1 and type 2 diabetes and the sex differences observed in the incidence and severity of diabetes. In addition, we discuss the possible biological mechanisms through which these differences arise. We describe the protective effect of estrogens in modulating the endoplasmic stress response that appears to contribute to sexual dimorphism in various rodent models of diabetes. In addition, we compare the differences observed in the regulation of the immune system response and nutrient metabolism in autoimmune and obese model of diabetes, respectively. We conclude that a better understanding of the biological processes that underpin sex differences in diabetes is needed to improve personalized approaches in diabetes prevention and treatment strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".