Comparison of Serum Hepcidin Levels Between Anaemic and Non-anaemic Obese Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the levels of serum hepcidin between anaemic and non-anaemic obese adults aged between 18 and 40 years. Material and Methods: The comparative cross-sectional study was conducted at Department of Physiology, King Edward Medical University, Lahore during July 2017 to June 2018. A sample size of 82 subjects (41 in each group) was calculated. After approval from the ethical review committee and taking informed consent, 82 volunteers fulfilling the criteria were recruited in this comparative cross-sectional study. Personal biodata and anthropometric measurements were recorded. Haemoglobin and hepcidin levels were estimated. Based on presence of anaemia, volunteers were divided into 2 groups of 41 participants each: anaemic obese and non- anaemic obese. Comparison of these two groups and statistical analysis of the data was done using SPSS (Version 23). Results: On comparison of anaemic obese and non-anaemic obese groups, no significant difference was found in hepcidin levels between two groups. On comparison of serum hepcidin levels with respect to grades of obesity, hepcidin levels were found significantly high in anaemic obese group as compared to non-anaemic obese group at BMI greater than 40. On comparison of serum hepcidin levels between two groups with respect to gender, anaemic obese females have low hepcidin levels than non-anaemic obese females while anaemic obese males have higher hepcidin levels than non-anaemic obese males. Conclusion: At higher BMIs, presence of higher hepcidin levels in anaemic obese group shows its probable role in development of anaemia in the presence of morbid obesity but no such correlation could be established at lower BMIs. Moreover, presence of low levels of hepcidin in anaemic obese females hints towards the nutritional cause of anaemia in anaemic obese females rather than inflammation and hepcidin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".