Longitudinal Decline of β-Cell Function: Comparison of a Direct Method vs a Fasting Surrogate Measure: The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: β-Cell function (BCF) declines over the course of type 2 diabetes, but little is known about BCF changes across glucose tolerance status (GTS) categories, and comparisons of direct vs surrogate measures. OBJECTIVE: To assess longitudinal changes in BCF across GTS. DESIGN: The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study is a multicenter, observational, epidemiologic study. SETTING: Four clinical centers in the US that could identify subjects likely to have impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). PATIENTS: We compared longitudinal changes in BCF in 1052 subjects over 5 years. Subjects were categorized according to baseline GTS: normal glucose tolerance (NGT: n = 547), impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance (IFG/IGT: n = 341), and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (n = 164). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BCF was assessed from a frequently sampled iv glucose tolerance test (AIR, acute insulin response), and the homeostasis model assessment of BCF (HOMA B). RESULTS: NGT and IFG/IGT subjects increased their insulin secretion over time, whereas those with type 2 diabetes experienced either decline or little change in BCF. After adjustment for demographic variables and change in insulin resistance, change in HOMA B underestimated the magnitude of changes in BCF, as assessed by change in AIR. Relative to NGT, the 5-year change in insulin secretion in IFG/IGT and type 2 diabetes was 31% and 70% lower (by HOMA B) and 50% and 80% lower (by AIR). CONCLUSIONS: The decline in BCF over time in IFG/IGT and type 2 diabetes may be more pronounced than previously estimated; HOMA B may underestimate this decline significantly.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".