The Added Value of Oral Glucose Tolerance Testing in Pre-Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increased acceptance of glycated hemoglobin measurement as the test of choice for the diagnosis and detection of diabetes, doubts which surround the use of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in detecting disturbances in glucose levels have become even more apparent. Metabolically, there are still arguments to use the OGTT. Epidemiological studies though, have not always supported the efficacy of the OGTT when used for screening in obese patients. In our opinion, current evidence suggests an additive value of the OGTT, its main advantage being the ability to detect stages of pre-diabetes more accurately than HbA1c and the ability to investigate postprandial glucose levels in a physiological way. Keywords: Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), Pre-diabetes, Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), IGT, IFG, EGP, post-absorptive state (PAS), HOMA-IR, fasting plasma glucose, insulin secretion (beta-cell function), postprandial glucose, Epidemiological Evidence, T2DM, hemoglobinopathies, uremia, anemia, metformin
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".