Heterogeneous Contribution of Insulin Sensitivity and Secretion Defects to Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize physiologic subtypes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Insulin sensitivity and secretion were estimated in 809 women at 24-30 weeks' gestation, using oral glucose tolerance test-based indices. In women with GDM (8.3%), defects in insulin sensitivity or secretion were defined below the 25th percentile in women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT). GDM subtypes were defined based on the defect(s) present. RESULTS: Relative to women with NGT, women with predominant insulin sensitivity defects (51% of GDM) had higher BMI and fasting glucose, larger infants (birth weight z score 0.57 [-0.01 to 1.37] vs. 0.03 [-0.53 to 0.52], P = 0.001), and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes (57.6 vs. 28.2%, P = 0.003); differences were independent of BMI. Women with predominant insulin secretion defects (30% of GDM) had BMI, fasting glucose, infant birth weights, and risk of adverse outcomes similar to those in women with NGT. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity of physiologic processes underlying hyperglycemia exists among women with GDM. GDM with impaired insulin sensitivity confers a greater risk of adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".