The contribution of SHBG to the variation in HOMA‐IR is not dependent on endogenous oestrogen or androgen levels in postmenopausal women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) is a robust predictor of insulin resistance. Whether this is independent of circulating sex steroid levels remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate the determinants of SHBG in postmenopausal women and whether the relationship between SHBG and insulin resistance is independent of oestrogen and androgen levels. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of naturally and surgically menopausal women. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixty three postmenopausal women not using any systemic hormone therapy, mean age 54·4 ± 5·8 years, recruited in the US, Canada, Australia, UK and Sweden between July 2004 and February 2005. MEASUREMENTS: Relationships between log-transformed (ln) SHBG and ln homoeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were explored, taking into account age, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP) and circulating oestradiol, oestrone, testosterone and dihydrotestosterone. RESULTS: Taking into account age, race, years since menopause, menopause type, BMI, BP, prior postmenopausal hormone use and the sex steroids measured, 34·4% of the variation in SHBG could be explained by the model that included negative contributions by HOMA-IR, BMI and diastolic BP, and a positive contribution by total testosterone (P < 0·001). None of the sex steroids made independent contributions to HOMA-IR, which was best explained by the model that included BMI, SHBG, systolic BP and surgical menopause, with each variable being positively related to HOMA-IR (r(2) = 0·3152, P = 0·03). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between SHBG and HOMA-IR, as an estimate of insulin resistance, is not explained by endogenous oestrogen and androgen levels and is, at least in part, independent of BMI in postmenopausal women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".