Cross-Sectional Association of Blood Selenium with Glycemic Biomarkers among U.S. Adults with Normoglycemia in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selenium (Se) remains to have an inconsistent relationship with glycemic biomarkers and the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Few studies have investigated the relationship between blood Se and glycemic biomarkers among people with normoglycemia. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013–2016. Multivariable linear regression models were developed to examine the associations of blood Se with glycemic biomarkers, namely, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), insulin, and the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Blood Se was treated as continuous (per log-10 increment) and categorical exposure (in quartiles) in separate regression models. We assessed the dose–response relationships by restricted cubic spline analysis. After excluding the participants with T2D or incomplete data, 2706 participants were analyzed. The highest quartile of blood Se was associated with increased FPG [adjusted β = 0.12, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) = 0.04, 0.20], OGTT (adjusted β = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.02, 0.56), HbA1c (adjusted β = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.00, 0.07), and insulin (adjusted β = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.05, 3.95) compared with the lowest quartile. Positive associations were also observed between every log-10 increment of blood Se level and glycemic biomarkers, except for OGTT. A positive linear dose–response relationship existed between blood Se and FPG (Poverall = 0.003, Pnonlinear = 0.073) and insulin (Poverall = 0.004, Pnonlinear =0.060). BMI, age, and smoking status modified the associations of the highest quartile of Se (compared with the lowest quartile) with glycemic biomarkers. Overall, positive associations of blood Se with glycemic biomarkers were observed among U.S. adults with normoglycemia. These findings implied that people with normoglycemia need to be aware of the level of Se and other mineral intakes from diet and supplements. Further research is required to identify the mechanisms of excess Se in the progression of diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".