Cross-Sectional and Prospective Associations between Abdominal Adiposity and Proinsulin Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the associations of total and abdominal obesity with variation in proinsulin concentration in a Native Canadian population experiencing an epidemic of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Between 1993 and 1995, 728 members of a Native Canadian community participated in a population-based survey to determine the prevalence and risk factors for type 2 DM. Samples for glucose, C-peptide, and proinsulin were drawn after an overnight fast, and a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test was administered. Type 2 DM and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) were diagnosed using World Health Organization criteria. Height, weight, waist circumference, and percent body fat were measured. In 1998, 95 individuals who, at baseline, had IGT or normal glucose tolerance with an elevated 2-h glucose level (> or = 7.0 mM) participated in a follow-up evaluation using the same protocol. After adjustment for age, sex, C-peptide concentration, per cent body fat, and waist circumference, proinsulin was found to be significantly elevated in diabetic subjects, relative to subjects with both impaired and normal glucose tolerance (both P < 0.0001); and the concentration in those with IGT was higher, compared with normals (P < 0.0001). Among nondiabetic subjects, proinsulin showed significant univariate associations with percent body fat, body mass index, and waist circumference (r = 0.34, 0.45, 0.41, respectively, all P < 0.0001). After adjustment for body fat and other covariates, waist circumference remained significantly associated with proinsulin concentration in nondiabetic subjects (r = 0.20, P < 0.0001). In prospective analysis, adjusted for covariates (including baseline IGT and follow-up glucose tolerance status), baseline waist circumference was positively associated with both follow-up and change in proinsulin concentration (r = 0.27, P = 0.01; r = 0.24, P = 0.03, respectively). These data highlight the detrimental effects of abdominal obesity on beta-cell function, and support the hypothesis that beta-cell dysfunction occurs early in the natural history of glucose intolerance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".