Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39621104›Full record

Observational studyDiabetologia2025

A critique of measurement of defective insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity as a precision approach to gestational diabetes.

Danielle L Jones, Laura C Kusinski, Clare Gillies, Claire L Meek

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Diabetologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Danielle L JonesInstitute of Metabolic Science Metabolic Research Laboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0372-5579
Laura C KusinskiInstitute of Metabolic Science Metabolic Research Laboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Clare GilliesLeicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Claire L MeekInstitute of Metabolic Science Metabolic Research Laboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. cm881@leicester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4176-8329

Funding

Diabetes UK 17/0005712European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes Future leaders' awardNovo Nordisk Fonden NNF19SA058974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aims/hypothesisPrecision medicine approaches to gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have categorised patients according to disease pathophysiology (insulin resistance, insulin insufficiency or both), and demonstrated associations with clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess whether using enhanced processing to determine indices of insulin secretion and sensitivity is analytically robust, reproducible in a different population, and useful diagnostically and prognostically in clinical practice.

methodsA total of 1308 pregnant women with one or more risk factors for GDM who underwent a 75 g OGTT at one of nine hospital sites were recruited to this observational study. Specimens were collected for determination of glucose levels using standard and enhanced procedures, HbA

resultsUsing enhanced specimen handling, 1027/1308 (78.5%) women had NGT, with 281/1308 (21.5%) being classified as having GDM. Of this group, 135/281 (48.0%) had insulin-resistant GDM, 73/281 (26.0%) had insulin-insufficient GDM and 2/281 (0.7%) had both insulin-resistant and insulin-insufficient GDM. Unexpectedly, 71 patients (25.3%) had GDM with both HOMA2-S and HOMA2-B ≥ 25th centile (GDM-neither). This novel subgroup appeared to be relatively insulin-sensitive in the fasting state but developed marked post-load hyperglycaemia and hyperinsulinaemia, suggesting an isolated postprandial defect in insulin sensitivity that was not captured by HOMA2-B or HOMA2-S. Women within most GDM subgroups had comparable pregnancy outcomes to those of normoglycaemic women, and HOMA2-B and HOMA2-S were weak predictors of pregnancy outcomes. Maternal BMI predicted a similar number of outcomes to HOMA2-S, suggesting that there was no additional predictive value in adding HOMA2-S. Similar findings were obtained when using different indices and standard specimen handling techniques. CONCLUSIONS/

interpretationPrecision categorisation of GDM using HOMA2-S and HOMA2-B does not provide useful diagnostic or prognostic information, but did distinguish a novel subgroup of patients with GDM, characterised by an isolated postprandial defect in insulin sensitivity.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalInsulinInsulin ResistanceAdultBlood GlucoseFemaleGlucose Tolerance TestHumansInsulin SecretionPregnancyBlood GlucoseInsulinDiagnosisGestational diabetesInsulin resistanceInsulin secretionOral glucose tolerance testPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39621104
PMCPMC11950144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.