MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410078327 · doi:10.1155/pedi/9982025

Trends in Prevalence of Insulin Resistance Among Nondiabetic/Nonprediabetic Adolescents, 1999–2020

2025· article· en· W4410078327 on OpenAlexaff
Dongying Zhao, Xianting Jiao, Chutian Shi, Zhong‐Cheng Luo, Yan Chen, Yongjun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Diabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperinsulinemiaMedicineInsulin resistancePrediabetesNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyInternal medicineConfidence intervalDiabetes mellitusInsulinEndocrinologyType 2 diabetesPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Insulin resistance (IR)/hyperinsulinemia in young individuals is associated with the subsequent development of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. To assess trends in the prevalence of IR/hyperinsulinemia among nondiabetic/nonprediabetic adolescents in the US from 1999 to 2020. Methods: A total of 6111 adolescents without diabetes and prediabetes were included from ten cycles of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999–2000 and 2017–2020. Hyperinsulinemia or IR was defined as fasting insulin or homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance [HOMA‐IR] above the 75th percentile in all participants who underwent blood tests on fasting insulin, glucose, and hemoglobin A1c. Trends in prevalence rates were estimated using joinpoint regressions with heteroscedastic and uncorrelated errors. Results: The overall weighted median fasting insulin level, prevalence of hyperinsulinemia, and IR were 9.9 μU/ml [95% confidence interval (CI): 9.6, 10.1], 17.2% (95% CI: 15.7, 18.6), and 16.4% (95% CI: 15.2, 17.9), respectively. The estimated prevalence of hyperinsulinemia and HOMA‐IR increased significantly from 15.2% (95% CI: 12.1, 18.9) and 14.0% (95% CI: 11.1, 17.8) in 1999–2000% to 21.5% (95% CI: 17.1, 26.3) and 20.4% (95% CI: 16.4, 25.6) in 2017–2020, respectively, with a 3.35% (95% CI: 1.74, 4.99) and 3.41% (95% CI: 1.72, 5.12) relative increase per 2‐year survey cycle, respectively ( p for trend <0.05). Substantial increases were observed in the subgroups of girls, Hispanic, non‐Hispanic white, and overweight adolescents. Conclusions: The prevalence of hyperinsulinemia/IR increased substantially among US nondiabetic/nonprediabetic adolescents over the last two decades. Early detection and effective interventions are in dire need to reverse the rising tide.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric DiabetesSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207