Insight into genetic, biological, and environmental determinants of sexual-dimorphism in type 2 diabetes and glucose-related traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that sex and gender differences play an important role in risk and pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Men develop T2D earlier than women, even though there is more obesity in young women than men. This difference in T2D prevalence is attenuated after the menopause. However, not all women are equally protected against T2D before the menopause, and gestational diabetes represents an important risk factor for future T2D. Biological mechanisms underlying sex and gender differences on T2D physiopathology are not yet fully understood. Sex hormones affect behavior and biological changes, and can have implications on lifestyle; thus, both sex-specific environmental and biological risk factors interact within a complex network to explain the differences in T2D risk and physiopathology in men and women. In addition, lifetime hormone fluctuations and body changes due to reproductive factors are generally more dramatic in women than men (ovarian cycle, pregnancy, and menopause). Progress in genetic studies and rodent models have significantly advanced our understanding of the biological pathways involved in the physiopathology of T2D. However, evidence of the sex-specific effects on genetic factors involved in T2D is still limited, and this gap of knowledge is even more important when investigating sex-specific differences during the life course. In this narrative review, we will focus on the current state of knowledge on the sex-specific effects of genetic factors associated with T2D over a lifetime, as well as the biological effects of these different hormonal stages on T2D risk. We will also discuss how biological insights from rodent models complement the genetic insights into the sex-dimorphism effects on T2D. Finally, we will suggest future directions to cover the knowledge gaps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".