Loss of Inverse Relationship Between Pulsatile Insulin and Glucagon Secretion in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In patients with type 2 diabetes, glucagon levels are often increased. Furthermore, pulsatile secretion of insulin is disturbed in such patients. Whether pulsatile glucagon secretion is altered in type 2 diabetes is not known. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve patients with type 2 diabetes and 13 nondiabetic individuals were examined in the fasting state and after mixed meal ingestion. Deconvolution analyses were performed on insulin and glucagon concentration time series sampled at 1-min intervals. RESULTS: Both insulin and glucagon were secreted in distinct pulses, occurring at ∼5-min intervals. In patients with diabetes, postprandial insulin pulse mass was reduced by 74% (P < 0.001). Glucagon concentrations were increased in the patients during fasting and after meal ingestion (P < 0.05), specifically through an increased glucagon pulse mass (P < 0.01). In healthy subjects, the increase in postprandial insulin levels was inversely related to respective glucagon levels (P < 0.05). This relationship was absent in the fasting state and in patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Glucagon and insulin are secreted in a coordinated, pulsatile manner. A plausible model is that the postprandial increase in insulin burst mass represses the corresponding glucagon pulses. Disruption of the insulin-glucagon interaction in patients with type 2 diabetes could potentially contribute to hyperglucagonemia.
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".