Fatty acid correlations with HOMA-IR and HOMA-% β are differentially dictated by their serum free and total pools and flaxseed oil supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective. The intent of the present study was to test two hypotheses. The primary hypothesis was that there would be differences between blood serum individual free fatty acids (SIFFA) and serum individual total fatty acids (SITFA) in terms of their different relationships (correlations) to each of homeostatic model assessment-individual insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and homeostatic model assessment-individual insulin resistance-percentage β-cell function (HOMA-% β) remaining in human type 2 diabetic patients with pre-flaxseed oil (FXO) and pre-safflower oil (SFO) administration. The secondary hypothesis was that FXO (rich in alpha-linolenic acid, ALA) supplementation would alter these correlations differently in the SIFFA and STIFFA pools in comparison with the placebo SFO (poor in ALA). Methods. Patients were recruited via a newspaper advertisement and two physicians. All patients came to visit 1 and three months later to visit 2. At visit 2, the subjects were randomly assigned (double-blind) to flaxseed or safflower oil (placebo) treatment for three months until visit 3. Results. There were pre-intervention differences in the SIFFA and STIFA pool’s relationships with each of HOMA-IR and HOMA-% β. These relatioships remained either unchanged or became significant after intervention (treatment or placebo). There was a negative correlation found between HOMA-IR and serum free ALA (SFALA) mol % after FXO. Serum total ALA (STALA) mol % had no significant correlations with HOMA-IR and HOMA- % β before and after flaxseed oil administration. Conclusions. The SIFFA and SITFA pools have different relationships with HOMA-IR and HOMA-% β for each of pre- and post-intervention. It is concluded that the data support both the primary and the secondary hypotheses indicating that they are correct.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".