MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061058254 · doi:10.1210/jcem.85.7.6681

Minimal-Model Estimates of Insulin Sensitivity Are Insensitive to Errors in Glucose Effectiveness<sup>1</sup>

2000· article· en· W2061058254 on OpenAlexaff
Cheryl McDonald, Andrea Dunaif, Diane T. Finegood

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsInsulinInsulin sensitivityEndocrinologyInternal medicineBolus (digestion)Polycystic ovaryMinimal modelMathematicsMedicineChemistryInsulin resistanceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The minimal-model method allows for estimation of insulin sensitivity (S(I) = P(3)/P(2)) and glucose effectiveness (S(G) = P(1)) from the time course of glucose and insulin after a glucose bolus. We previously demonstrated that the minimal-model results in overestimates of S(G) in subjects with normal insulin secretory function. To determine whether overestimation of S(G) has an impact on estimation of S(I), we examined model estimation of S(I) when S(G) was constrained to levels below that found by the regular minimal-model fit. Fifty-six glucose tolerance tests from lean and obese women, with and without polycystic ovary syndrome, were used. S(I) ranged from 0.2-22.6 x 10(-4) min(-1)/(microU/mL), and S(G) ranged from 0.8-3.8 x 10(-2) min(-1) for the standard minimal-model fits. Constraining S(G) to as low as 40% of the unconstrained value resulted in a 4-fold increase in P2 and P3, but only a 3% reduction in S(I). We conclude that estimation of the insulin sensitivity index is independent of errors in minimal-model-derived estimates of glucose effectiveness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207