Home › Research › Drug development
Characterization of the Meal-Stimulated Incretin Response and Relationship With Structural Brain Outcomes in Aging and Alzheimer's Disease
Morris JK, John CS, Green ZD, Wilkins HM, Wang X, Kamat A, Swerdlow RS, Vidoni ED et al.. Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020-11-30
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
Background Individuals with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) are often characterized by systemic markers of insulin resistance; however, the broader effects of AD on other relevant metabolic hormones, such as incretins that affect insulin secretion and food intake, remains less clear. Methods Here, we leveraged a physiologically relevant meal tolerance test to assess diagnostic differences in these metabolic responses in cognitively healthy older adults (CH; n = 32) and AD ( n = 23) participants. All individuals also underwent a comprehensive clinical examination, cognitive evaluation, and structural magnetic resonance imaging. Results The meal-stimulated response of glucose, insulin, and peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY) was significantly greater in individuals with AD as compared to CH. Voxel-based morphometry revealed negative relationships between brain volume and the meal-stimulated response of insulin, C-Peptide, and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) in primarily parietal brain regions. Conclusion Our findings are consistent with prior work that shows differences in metabolic regulation in AD and relationships with cognition and brain structure.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Morris, J. K., John, C. S., Green, Z. D., Wilkins, H. M., Wang, X., Kamat, A., et al. (2020). Characterization of the Meal-Stimulated Incretin Response and Relationship With Structural Brain Outcomes in Aging and Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.608862
Vancouver
Morris JK, John CS, Green ZD, Wilkins HM, Wang X, Kamat A, et al. Characterization of the Meal-Stimulated Incretin Response and Relationship With Structural Brain Outcomes in Aging and Alzheimer's Disease. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2020. doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.608862. PMID: 33328877.
BibTeX
@article{morris2020-33328877,
author = {Morris, J. K. and John, C. S. and Green, Z. D. and Wilkins, H. M. and Wang, X. and Kamat, A. and Swerdlow, R. S. and Vidoni, E. D. and others},
title = {{Characterization of the Meal-Stimulated Incretin Response and Relationship With Structural Brain Outcomes in Aging and Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {Frontiers in neuroscience},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3389/fnins.2020.608862},
pmid = {33328877},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.608862}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The meal-stimulated response of glucose, insulin, and peptide tyrosine tyrosine (PYY) was significantly greater in individuals with AD as compared to CH.
- Voxel-based morphometry revealed negative relationships between brain volume and the meal-stimulated response of insulin, C-Peptide, and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) in primarily parietal brain regions.
- Conclusion Our findings are consistent with prior work that shows differences in metabolic regulation in AD and relationships with cognition and brain structure.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants32
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 32 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33328877) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development from nearby years
Also tagged “response”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “response”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.