The Definition of Insulin Resistance Using HOMA-IR for Americans of Mexican Descent Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The lack of standardized reference range for the homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index has limited its clinical application. This study defines the reference range of HOMA-IR index in an adult Hispanic population based with machine learning methods. METHODS: This study investigated a Hispanic population of 1854 adults, randomly selected on the basis of 2000 Census tract data in the city of Brownsville, Cameron County. Machine learning methods, support vector machine (SVM) and Bayesian Logistic Regression (BLR), were used to automatically identify measureable variables using standardized values that correlate with HOMA-IR; K-means clustering was then used to classify the individuals by insulin resistance. RESULTS: Our study showed that the best cutoff of HOMA-IR for identifying those with insulin resistance is 3.80. There are 39.1% individuals in this Hispanic population with HOMA-IR>3.80. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are dramatically different using the popular clinical cutoff of 2.60. The high sensitivity and specificity of HOMA-IR>3.80 for insulin resistance provide a critical fundamental for our further efforts to improve the public health of this Hispanic population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".