ReviewDiabetes2026
Toward Scientific Rigor: Setting Standards for Indirect Calorimetry Analysis and Reporting.
Review in Diabetes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Myeloid MMP14 couples extracellular proteolysis to inflammatory and metabolic remodeling during obesity.Cell reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Indirect calorimetry determines energy expenditure by measuring respiratory gas exchange. The approach is based on the principle that nutrient metabolism consumes O2 and produces CO2 and water in predictable ratios that can be compared with heat production. Due to the impracticality and high cost of direct calorimetry, indirect calorimetry is the major approach for modern metabolic studies in preclinical models. Despite the broad adoption of this method in rodent phenotyping, the field has lacked standardized methods for analyzing, representing, and sharing these data, limiting scientific progress. The recent review in Nature Metabolism by the International Indirect Calorimetry Consensus Committee (IICCC) addresses the lack of standardized methods by providing updated guidelines for data processing and representation and emphasizes the importance of shared data repositories tailored to these studies. These expert consensus standards aim to improve transparency, facilitate data sharing and archiving, and enhance cross-study comparability. We encourage authors submitting to Diabetes to adopt the IICCC guidelines to strengthen rigor and reproducibility in the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.