Glucagon Response to Oral Glucose Challenge in Type 1 Diabetes: Lack of Impact of Euglycemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Previous studies have demonstrated aberrant glucagon physiology in the setting of type 1 diabetes (T1D) but have not addressed the potential impact of ambient glycemia on this glucagon response. Thus, our objective was to evaluate the impact of euglycemia versus hyperglycemia on the glucagon response to an oral glucose challenge in T1D. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Ten adults with T1D (mean age 56.6 ± 9.0 years, duration of diabetes 26.4 ± 7.5 years, HbA1c 7.5% ± 0.77, and BMI 24.1 kg/m(2) [22.6-25.4]) underwent 3-h 50-g oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) on two separate days at least 24 h apart in random order under conditions of pretest euglycemia (plasma glucose [PG] between 4 and 6 mmol/L) and hyperglycemia (PG between 9 and 11 mmol/L), respectively. RESULTS Glycemic excursion on the OGTT was similar between the euglycemic and hyperglycemic tests (P = 0.72 for interaction between time postchallenge and glycemic setting). Interestingly, glucagon levels increased in response to the OGTT under both glycemic conditions (P < 0.001) and there were no differences in glucagon response between the euglycemic and hyperglycemic days (P = 0.40 for interaction between time postchallenge and glycemic setting). In addition, the incretin responses to the OGTT (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, glucagon-like peptide-1, glucagon-like peptide-2) were also not different between the euglycemic and hyperglycemic settings. CONCLUSIONS In patients with T1D, there is a paradoxical increase in glucagon in response to oral glucose that is not reversed when euglycemia is achieved prior to the test. This abnormal glucagon response likely contributes to the postprandial hyperglycemia in T1D irrespective of ambient glycemia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".