Microscopic Acanthosis Nigricans in Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acanthosis nigricans (AN) has been associated with insulin resistance. Individuals with type 2 diabetes are insulin-resistant and, therefore, could be expected to manifest AN. However, the prevalence and predictors of AN are unknown in this population. Objective: An outpatient population with Type 2 diabetes (DM) was compared with matched controls (C) for microscopic and clinical AN along with measurement of body habitus, insulin, glucose, and androgen levels. Methods: Twenty-four individuals with DM (12M, 12F) from a tertiary care center were compared with 24 C (12M, 12F). Fasting glucose, insulin, sex hormone binding globulin, androstenedione, dihydroepiandrosterone sulfate, and testosterone were measured. Height, weight, waist/hip measures, and a clinical survey for acanthosis were recorded. A 2-mm skin biopsy from midaxilla of the nondominant arm was taken for pathological review. Results: C and DM were matched for age and body mass index (BMI). Prevalence of microscopic AN in C was 12% (3/24) and in DM was 21% (5/24; NS). In C, AN was predicted by waist, waist/hip ratio, and fasting insulin measures, while none of the variables examined was predicative of AN in DM. Conclusions: Microscopic acanthosis nigricans was found in similar numbers of people with DM when compared with C. Fasting insulin levels most strongly predicted the presence of AN in C, while no significant predictors of AN were found in the population with DM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".