MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156669160 · doi:10.2337/diacare.28.11.2710

The Impact of Insulin Resistance on Proinsulin Secretion in Pregnancy

2005· article· en· W2156669160 on OpenAlexafffund
Ravi Retnakaran, Anthony J. Hanley, Mathew Sermer, Bernard Zinman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProinsulinInsulin resistancePregnancyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologySecretionInsulinObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Excessive secretion of the insulin precursor proinsulin, as manifested by an increased serum proinsulin-to-insulin ratio, has been associated with beta-cell dysfunction. In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), previous studies of the proinsulin-to-insulin ratio have yielded conflicting results, despite the presence of beta-cell dysfunction. The interpretation of the proinsulin-to-insulin ratio, however, may be confounded by the variable effects of hepatic insulin extraction. Thus, we sought to determine whether GDM is characterized by relative hyperproinsulinemia as measured by the proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio, an alternate measure of proinsulin secretion that is not affected by hepatic insulin extraction. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Serum proinsulin, C-peptide, and insulin were measured in a cross-sectional study of 180 women undergoing oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in the late second or early third trimester. Based on the OGTT, participants were stratified into three groups: 1) normal glucose tolerance (NGT; n = 93), 2) impaired glucose tolerance (IGT; n = 39), and 3) GDM (n = 48). Insulin sensitivity (IS) was measured using the IS(OGTT) index of Matsuda and DeFronzo, which has been previously validated in pregnant women. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean fasting proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio between the three glucose tolerance groups (NGT, 0.024; IGT, 0.022; GDM, 0.019; P = 0.4). Furthermore, adjustment for age, weeks' gestation, prepregnancy BMI, ethnicity, previous GDM, and family history of diabetes did not reveal any association between the proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio and glucose tolerance status. Using Spearman univariate correlation analysis, fasting proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio was significantly correlated with IS(OGTT) (r = 0.29, P < 0.0001) and inversely related to the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (r = -0.36, P < 0.0001) and prepregnancy BMI (r = -0.23, P < 0.005). On multiple linear regression analysis, IS(OGTT) emerged as the strongest independent correlate of the dependent variable proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio. Furthermore, after adjustment for potential covariates, a stepwise decrease in proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio was observed per decreasing tertile of IS(OGTT) (trend P = 0.0019), consistent with enhanced efficiency of proinsulin processing (i.e., reduced proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio) as insulin resistance increases. CONCLUSIONS: GDM is not independently associated with hyperproinsulinemia as measured by the proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio. Instead, in pregnant women, increased insulin resistance is associated with decreased proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio, independently of glucose tolerance status. These data suggest that relative proinsulin secretion in late pregnancy is primarily related to insulin resistance and does not necessarily reflect beta-cell function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207