Comparison of the rapid insulin sensitivity test (RIST), the insulin tolerance test (ITT), and the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HIEC) to measure insulin action in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to compare the ability of the rapid insulin sensitivity test (RIST), the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HIEC), and the insulin tolerance test (ITT) to detect hepatic insulin sensitizing substance (HISS) dependent insulin action. HISS action was augmented by feeding and inhibited by fasting, blockade of hepatic nitric oxide synthase, or blockade of hepatic muscarinic cholinergic receptors. A significant correlation was found between the RIST index and ITT nadir (r2 = 0.84) but not between the glucose infusion rate of the HIEC and RIST index. There was, however, a relationship between the RIST index and the initial response during the HIEC. Use of the HIEC resulted in HISS-dependent insulin resistance in both conscious and anesthetized animals. We concluded that since the RIST and ITT were comparable in quantifying both HISS-dependent and HISS-independent insulin action, the RIST was validated against this standard. The observation that the HIEC is capable of detecting HISS action in the first rising slope of the test but not at the end of the test and that HISS release is fully blocked after the conclusion of the HIEC raises concerns about the use of the commonly used HIEC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".