Insulin resistance and insulin hypersecretion in the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: Time for a conceptual framework shift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While few dispute the existence of the metabolic syndrome as a clustering of factors indicative of poor metabolic health, its utility above that of its individual components in the clinical care of individual patients is questioned. This is likely a consequence of the failure of clinicians and scientists to agree on a unifying mechanism to explain the metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance has most commonly been proposed for this role and is generally considered to be a root causative factor for not only metabolic syndrome but also for its associated conditions of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), obesity-related type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). An alternative view, for which evidence is mounting, is that hyper-responsiveness of islet β-cells to a hostile environment, such as westernised lifestyle, is primary and that the resulting hyperinsulinaemia drives the other components of the metabolic syndrome. Importantly, within this new conceptual framework, insulin resistance, while always a biomarker and state of poor metabolic health, is not considered to be harmful, but a protective adaptive response of critical tissues including the myocardium against insulin-induced metabolic stress. This major shift in how metabolic syndrome can be considered puts insulin hypersecretion into position as the unifying mechanism. If shown to be correct, this new conceptual framework has major implications for the future prevention and management of the metabolic syndrome, including its associated conditions of NAFLD, PCOS, obesity-related T2D and ASCVD.
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 | 0.041 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".