MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200521574 · doi:10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002264

Shape of the OGTT glucose response curve: relationship with β-cell function and differences by sex, race, and BMI in adults with early type 2 diabetes treated with metformin

2021· article· en· W3200521574 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina M. Utzschneider, Naji Younes, Neda Rasouli, Joshua I. Barzilay, Mary Ann Banerji, Robert M. Cohen, Erica Gonzalez, Faramarz Ismail‐Beigi, Kieren J. Mather, Philip Raskin, Deborah J. Wexler, John M. Lachin, Steven E. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCenters for Disease Control and PreventionBDNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNovo NordiskAmerican Diabetes AssociationSanofiBristol-Myers SquibbU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineMetforminType 2 diabetesInternal medicineRace (biology)Diabetes mellitusEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The shape of the glucose curve during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) reflects β-cell function in populations without diabetes but has not been as well studied in those with diabetes. A monophasic shape has been associated with higher risk of diabetes, while a biphasic pattern has been associated with lower risk. We sought to determine if phenotypic or metabolic characteristics were associated with glucose response curve shape in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of 3108 metformin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes diagnosed <10 years who underwent 2-hour 75 g OGTT at baseline as part of the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE). Insulin sensitivity (homeostasis model of insulin sensitivity, HOMA2-S) and β-cell function (early, late, and total incremental insulin and C peptide responses adjusted for HOMA2-S) were calculated. Glucose curve shape was classified as monophasic, biphasic, or continuous rise. RESULTS: The monophasic profile was the most common (67.8% monophasic, 5.5% biphasic, 26.7% continuous rise). The monophasic subgroup was younger, more likely male and white, and had higher body mass index (BMI), while the continuous rise subgroup was more likely female and African American/black. HOMA2-S and fasting glucose did not differ among the subgroups. The biphasic subgroup had the highest early, late, and total insulin and C peptide responses (all p<0.05 vs monophasic and continuous rise). Compared with the monophasic subgroup, the continuous rise subgroup had similar early insulin (p=0.3) and C peptide (p=0.6) responses but lower late insulin (p<0.001) and total insulin (p=0.008) and C peptide (p<0.001) responses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the large multiethnic GRADE cohort, sex, race, age, and BMI were found to be important determinants of the shape of the glucose response curve. A pattern of a continuously rising glucose at 2 hours reflected reduced β-cell function and may portend increased glycemic failure rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01794143.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Diabetes Research & CareSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207