ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Inverted insulin to C-Peptide ratios in neonatal intensive care: is there something we don't know?
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Insulin (I) and C-Peptide (C) are secreted in equimolar amounts, but insulin clears more rapidly. Typical Insulin to C-Peptide ratios (I/C) are therefore <0.05-0.2 (1/20-1/5). Except in relatively rare cases, I/C > 1.0 are interpreted as evidence of exogenous or factitious insulin dosing. However, recently published data from pre-term neonates with no insulin dosing or family history of diabetes show far higher ratios. How can these " Hypothesis: Insulin binding antibodies explain the incidence and magnitude of "inverted" I/C ratios in this NICU cohort? Method: A secondary analysis integrating three independent evidence streams with mechanistic modelling study. Three "siloed" areas of neonatal research were integrated: (1) paired insulin and C-Peptide measurements from two NICU cohorts (227 and 75 matched samples) from infants not receiving insulin and with no immediate family history of diabetes or insulin use illustrates the incidence of unexpected I/C > 0.1-0.2; (2) Analysis of direct measurements of affinity, displacement and binding-site capacity across 5 independent studies constrain neonatal binding affinity and concentration; and (3) Analysis of binding kinetics of reversible insulin-binding reactions. Results of #2-3 are combined with a clinically validated neonatal metabolic model to assess whether they could account for observed I/C > 1.0 from #1. Results: For #1, over 80% of NICU infants had I/C > 0.1 and 40% had I/C > 1.0 consistent with circulating bound insulin measured by some immunoassays. #2, Independent affinity measurements, displacement studies, direct concentration measurements, and reconstruction from I/C data converged on a dominant high-affinity, low-nanomolar binding regime. #3, Model-based analysis of antibody binding reactions reproduced the observed I/C ratios and high apparent insulin concentrations without requiring extreme assumptions. Conclusion: High I/C ratios are not uncommon in NICU neonates and can be explained by high-affinity insulin-binding activity rather than insulin administration. Multiple independent quantitative analyses converge on a common high-affinity, low-nanomolar binding regime which reproduces observed I/C ratios. Critical illness, such as sepsis, significantly increases the levels and likelihood of unexpected high I/C ratios.
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.