Cross-Sectional and Prospective Associations Between Proinsulin and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in a Population Experiencing Rapid Cultural Transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine cross-sectional and prospective associations between proinsulin and cardiovascular disease risk factors using data from a population-based study of type 2 diabetes among Native Canadians. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 1995, 72% of eligible members of a Native Canadian community participated in a baseline diabetes prevalence survey. Fasting samples were collected for glucose, C-peptide, proinsulin, lipids, and apolipoproteins. A 75-g oral glucose tolerance test was administered, and a second sample for glucose was drawn after 120 min. Blood pressure and waist circumference were determined. In the present study, subjects with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) (n = 505) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (n = 74) were included in cross-sectional analyses. In 1998, 95 individuals who had IGT or NGT at baseline with an elevated 2-h glucose concentration (> or = 7.0 mmol/l) participated in a follow-up evaluation using the protocol used at baseline. Cross-sectional and prospective associations between proinsulin and cardiovascular risk factors were assessed using correlation and multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates including age, sex, C-peptide, waist circumference, and glucose tolerance status, fasting proinsulin concentration was significantly associated with concurrently measured lipid and apolipoprotein concentrations (triglycerides: r = 0.18, P < 0.0001; total cholesterol: r = 0.10, P = 0.02; LDL cholesterol: r = 0.11, P = 0.01; HDL cholesterol: r = -0.16, P = 0.0002; apolipoprotein (apo) B: r = 0.17, P < 0.0001; apoAI: r = -0.11, P = 0.008). In the adjusted prospective analysis, baseline triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and apoB were associated with changes over time in proinsulin (r = 0.23, P = 0.04; r = -0.30, P = 0.01; r = 0.23, P = 0.04; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm previously reported cross-sectional associations between proinsulin and lipid concentrations. In addition, an unexpected association between baseline lipids and proinsulin change was documented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".