ArticleScientific reports2025
Estimating homeostasis model assessment for insulin secretion by using multiple adaptive regression spline in healthy Taiwanese men.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2M) has been increasing drastically in recent two decades. One of the main underlying pathophysiology was decreased insulin secretion (ISEC). Even though there were many studies found the related factors affecting ISEC, no study used multiple adaptive regression spline (MARS) to build an equation estimating ISEC. In the present study, we used MARS to estimate hemostasis assessment model of β-cell (HOMA-β) in healthy Taiwanese men. Totally, there were 317 men enrolled. Participants who were taking medications related to metabolic syndrome were excluded. MARS was used to build an equation to estimate HOMA-β. Multiple linear regression (MLR) was taken as a bench mark for comparing the accuracy with MARS. The method with less estimation errors was considered to be more accurate. All the estimation errors were smaller for MARS. This indicated that MARS outperformed MLR. The equation built is shown below. The r
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.