Prediction of Type 2 Diabetes Using Simple Measures of Insulin Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine and formally compare the ability of simple indexes of insulin resistance (IR) to predict type 2 diabetes, we used combined prospective data from the San Antonio Heart Study, the Mexico City Diabetes Study, and the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study, which include well-characterized cohorts of non-Hispanic white, African-American, Hispanic American, and Mexican subjects with 5-8 years of follow-up. Poisson regression was used to assess the ability of each candidate index to predict incident diabetes at the follow-up examination (343 of 3,574 subjects developed diabetes). The areas under the receiver operator characteristic (AROC) curves for each index were calculated and statistically compared. In pooled analysis, Gutt et al.'s insulin sensitivity index at 0 and 120 min (ISI(0,120)) displayed the largest AROC (78.5%). This index was significantly more predictive (P < 0.0001) than a large group of indexes (including those by Belfiore, Avignon, Katz, and Stumvoll) that had AROC curves between 66 and 74%. These findings were essentially similar both after adjustment for covariates and when analyses were conducted separately by glucose tolerance status and ethnicity/study subgroups. In conclusion, we found substantial differences between published IR indexes in the prediction of diabetes, with ISI(0,120) consistently showing the strongest prediction. This index may reflect other aspects of diabetes pathogenesis in addition to IR, which might explain its strong predictive abilities despite its moderate correlation with direct measures of IR.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".