Comparison of the [13C]Glucose Breath Test to the Hyperinsulinemic-Euglycemic Clamp When Determining Insulin Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With increasing emphasis on the recognition of the metabolic syndrome and early type 2 diabetes, a clinically useful measure of insulin resistance is desirable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether an index of glucose metabolism, as measured by (13)CO(2) generation from ingested [(13)C]glucose, would correlate with indexes from the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 26 subjects with varying degrees of insulin sensitivity underwent both the [(13)C]glucose breath test and the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Results from the [(13)C]glucose breath test were compared with measures of insulin sensitivity from the glucose clamp as well as with other commonly used indexes of insulin sensitivity. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between the [(13)C]glucose breath test result and the glucose disposal rate (r = 0.69, P < 0.0001) and insulin sensitivity index (r = 0.69, P < 0.0001) from the insulin clamp. The magnitude of these correlations compared favorably with QUICKI and were superior to the homeostasis model assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The [(13)C]glucose breath test may provide a useful noninvasive assessment of insulin sensitivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".