Evaluation of insulin sensitivity with a new lipid-based index in non-diabetic postmenopausal overweight and obese women before and after a weight loss intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of a new lipid-based index (Disse index) in assessing insulin sensitivity (IS) compared with the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic (HIEG) clamp in overweight and obese, non-diabetic, postmenopausal women, before and after a weight loss intervention. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Association between Disse index and the HIEG clamp was evaluated in 86 non-diabetic postmenopausal overweight and obese women before and after weight loss. Percentage changes (%Delta) were calculated for several fasting indices and compared with %Delta of HIEG clamp. RESULTS: We observed a strong correlation between Disse index and HIEG clamp (r=0.69, P<0.001). This association was higher than those of homeostasis model assessment (HOMA), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), and McAuley indices while no significant difference was observed with Revised-QUICKI. Percent change of Disse index (pre- versus post-weight loss program) was significantly correlated with %Delta of HIEG clamp (r=0.34, P<0.01). This correlation was similar to those observed for the other indices tested. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the reliability of Disse index in assessing IS in non-diabetic post-menopausal overweight and obese women, before and after weight loss intervention. Disse index may be useful not only for insulin resistant diagnostics in this type of population, but also for the IS follow-up after a weight-loss program and weight stabilization. The presence of lipid elements in this fasting index improves the estimation of IS in overweight and obese non-diabetic post-menopausal women and could add more information about peripheral IS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".