Proinsulin is sensitive to reflect glucose intolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: We investigated associations between glucose tolerance and β-cell function using a series of estimation methods in a population-based study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Dynamics of Lifestyle and Neighborhood Community on Health Study were analyzed. A total of 489 participants (263 women) were divided into three groups: normal glucose tolerance (NGT), prediabetes (PDM) and diabetes group. We estimated β-cell function by the homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function, proinsulin level (PI), C-peptide index, proinsulin-to-C-peptide ratio (PI/CPR) and proinsulin-to-insulin ratio. Because data on all five parameters of β-cell function showed skewed distributions, the values of these parameters were normalized by natural logarithmic (ln) transformation. Next, the association between glucose tolerance and β-cell function among participants without diabetes was examined. In this analysis, glucose tolerance was assessed based on glycated hemoglobin levels. RESULTS: In the crude analysis, ln(PI) and ln(PI/CPR) were significantly higher in the diabetes group than those in the PDM and NGT groups, and these parameters were significantly higher in the PDM group than in the NGT group. Only ln(PI) in the PDM group was significantly higher compared with that in the NGT group after adjustment for age, sex and body mass index (ln[PI]: PDM group 2.38 pmol/L, 95% confidence interval 2.29-2.47 pmol/L; NGT group 2.17 pmol/L, 95% confidence interval 2.12-2.22 pmol/L; P < 0.05). In addition, ln(PI) levels were significantly and positively correlated with glycated hemoglobin quartile in participants without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that PI was the most sensitive to reflect glucose intolerance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".