Exploring a Suitable Marker of Glycemic Response to Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous studies suggested that β-cell function markers such as fasting and postprandial serum C-peptide and C-peptide increment (FCPR, PCPR, and ΔCPR, respectively) may be useful in estimating glycemic response to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. However, it remains elusive whether baseline glycemic control confounds these markers. Here we aimed to identify the least confounded β-cell function markers and investigate whether these markers could predict glycemic response to dulaglutide. METHODS: We evaluated FCPR, PCPR, and ΔCPR levels in patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated dulaglutide treatment after a standardized meal tolerance test (MTT). We first investigated the confounding effects of baseline HbA1c on β-cell function markers using Pearson's correlation test. Then, we evaluated the association between each β-cell function marker and glycemic response (HbA1c change 0-6 months) to dulaglutide using generalized linear model and logistic regression analysis with adjustment for baseline HbA1c. RESULTS: In 141 patients, baseline HbA1c was significantly inversely correlated with PCPR and ΔCPR (P < 0.01 for both) but not with FCPR (r = 0.02; P = 0.853), suggesting that FCPR was the marker least confounded by baseline glycemic control. Of all patients, 59 continued dulaglutide for at least 6 months without initiating any additional glucose-lowering medications. Mean ± SE HbA1c change 0-6 months was - 1.16 ± 0.17% (P < 0.001 vs. baseline). The β-cell function markers were significantly associated with HbA1c change 0-6 months in the generalized linear model. FCPR was also a significant predictor for achieving a reduction in HbA1c of at least 1% (P = 0.044) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.83 (sensitivity = 0.81 and specificity = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Fasting and meal-induced C-peptide levels are associated with glycemic response to dulaglutide, among which FCPR is least confounded by baseline glycemic control, suggesting its utility as a marker for glycemic response to dulaglutide.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".