Abdominal obesity predicts declining insulin sensitivity in non‐obese normoglycaemics: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated a relationship between obesity and insulin sensitivity (S(I)); however, there is a lack of evidence from longitudinal studies. METHODS: The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS) estimated S(I) (x10(-4)/min.microU/ml) directly using a frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test with minimal model analysis in 504 normoglycaemic subjects. Partial correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to compare the relationship of change in S(I) from baseline to 5 years later (DeltaS(I)) with baseline waist circumference (waist) as a measure of abdominal obesity and body mass index (BMI) as a measure of overall obesity. Mean DeltaS(I) was -1.06 (SD = 1.85). RESULTS: Higher baseline waist (r = -0.16; p = 0.0005), but not BMI (r = -0.005; p = 0.91), was associated with (-) DeltaS(I) in models including sex, ethnicity, clinical centre and baseline S(I), BMI, waist, age and physical activity. The waist-DeltaS(I) relationship differed across the levels of baseline BMI, being significant only in normal weight (r = -0.21) and overweight subjects (r = -0.16), but not in obese subjects. DeltaS(I) was correlated with a 5-year change in either obesity measure (Deltawaist: r = -0.22 and DeltaBMI: r = -0.20; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among non-diabetics, waist circumference was a strong predictor of declining S(I) among lean subjects, a modest predictor among overweight subjects, but was not predictive among obese individuals. Waist circumference should be considered, in addition to BMI, when identifying individuals at high risk of diabetes or the insulin resistance syndrome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".