ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2011
A spectrum of dynamic insulin sensitivity test protocols.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel hierarchal-based approach to measure insulin sensitivity and secretion in at-risk populations.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Trial
- Estimating Enhanced Endogenous Glucose Production in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Severe Insulin Resistance.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- The Effects of Additional Local-Mixing Compartments in the DISST Model-Based Assessment of Insulin Sensitivity.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Next-generation, personalised, model-based critical care medicine: a state-of-the art review of in silico virtual patient models, methods, and cohorts, and how to validation them.Biomedical engineering online · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous tests have been developed to estimate insulin sensitivity (SI). However, most of the established tests are either too expensive for widespread application or do not yield reliable results. The dynamic insulin sensitivity and secretion test (DISST) uses assays of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide from nine samples to quantify SI and endogenous insulin secretion (UN) at a comparatively low cost. The quick dynamic insulin sensitivity test has shown that the DISST SI values are robust to significant assay omissions.
methodsEight DISST-based variations of the nine-sample assay regimen are proposed to investigate the effects of assay omission within the DISST-based framework. SI and UN were identified using the fully-sampled DISST and data from 218 nine-sample tests undertaken in 74 female individuals with elevated diabetes risk. This same data was then used with appropriate assay omissions to identify SI and UN with the eight DISST-based assay variations.
resultsMedian intraprocedure proportional difference between SI values from fully-sampled DISST and the DISST-based variants was in the range of -17.9 to 7.8%. Correlations were in the range of r = 0.71 to 0.92 with the highest correlations between variants with the greatest commonality with the nine-sample DISST. Metrics of UN correlated relatively well between tests when C-peptide was assayed (r = 0.72 to 1) but were sometimes not well estimated when samples were not assayed for C-peptide (r = -0.14 to 0.75).
conclusionsThe DISST-based spectrum offers a series of tests with very distinct compromises of information yield, accuracy, assay cost, and clinical intensity. Thus, the spectrum of tests has the potential to enable researchers to better allocate funds by selecting an optimal test configuration for their particular application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.