Differences in Insulin Resistance in Nondiabetic Subjects With Isolated Impaired Glucose Tolerance or Isolated Impaired Fasting Glucose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) (as defined by the 1985 World Health Organization criteria) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) (as defined by the 1997 American Diabetes Association criteria) represent intermediate metabolic states between normal and diabetic glucose homeostasis. Cardiovascular disease may be related to postglucose load rather than fasting glycemia, i.e., IGT rather than IFG. We hypothesized that subjects with IGT may be more insulin resistant and have higher levels of common cardiovascular risk factors than those with isolated IFG. In the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS), we studied S(i) and first-phase insulin secretion (acute insulin response [AIR]), as derived from a frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test, as well as common cardiovascular risk factors in four different glucose tolerance categories (NFG/NGT [n = 654], NFG/IGT [n = 255], IFG/NGT [n = 59], and IFG/IGT [n = 102]) among nondiabetic subjects. Subjects with isolated postchallenge hyperglycemia (NFG/IGT) had lower S(i) (means +/- SE: 2.10 +/- 0.04 vs. 2.59 +/- 0.13 x 10(-4) min(-1). microU(-1). ml(-1); P = 0.005), lower proinsulin levels (34.4 +/- 1.8 vs. 42.0 +/- 4.5 pmol/l; P = 0.03), higher AIR (273.1 +/- 18.1 vs. 215.9 +/- 30.0 pmol/l; P = 0.04), higher C-reactive protein (2.49 +/- 0.3 vs. 1.49 +/- 0.5 mg/l; P = 0.0015), and higher triglyceride levels (137.7 +/- 5.5 vs. 108.4 +/- 8.9 mg/dl; P = 0.0025) than subjects with isolated fasting hyperglycemia (IFG/NGT). The relation of insulin resistance to glucose tolerance category was consistently seen in women and men and across the three ethnic groups of the IRAS (non-Hispanic whites, African Americans, and Hispanics). Nondiabetic individuals with isolated postchallenge hyperglycemia (IGT) are more insulin resistant than individuals with isolated fasting hyperglycemia (IFG). The risk factor pattern (including increased insulin resistance) seen in isolated IGT identifies a subgroup of nondiabetic individuals who are likely to benefit from early intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".