MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Osteocalcin is significantly higher in Caucasian pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus

2012· article· en· W964460959 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Negar Tabatabaei, Yves Giguère, Marc Charland, Jean‐Claude Forest, Celia Rodd, Richard Kremer, Hope A. Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'AssiseMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGestational diabetesMedicineGestationPregnancyOsteocalcinObstetricsDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyInternal medicineChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lower 25(OH)D and higher osteocalcin (OC) concentrations have been observed at mid‐gestation in pregnant women with gestational diabetes (GDM) compared to those without. We aimed to investigate simultaneously 25(OH)D and OC throughout pregnancy in a nested case‐control (48–48) study in Caucasians living in Quebec City (matched for age, season, BMI and length of pregnancy). Maternal serum 25(OH)D and OC were measured by chemiluminescence and ELISA, respectively at 13–16 and 24–28 weeks gestation and at delivery. Differences in concentrations were tested using a MIXED model repeated measures ANOVA. We conclude that 25(OH)D was not significantly different (p=0.260) while OC was significantly higher (p=0.024) in GDM vs healthy pregnant women. Both 25(OH)D and OC increased significantly with time (p<0.001), but there were no interactions between health state with time (p=0.092, p=0.434, respectively). Funded by CIHR. Grant Funding Source : Canadian Institutes of Health Research

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicVitamin D Research Studies→French-language works237,207→