Paul D Docherty, J Geoffrey Chase, Christopher E Hann, Thomas F Lotz, J Lin, Kirsten A McAuley, Geoffrey M Shaw
{"title":"动态胰岛素敏感性试验中胰岛素饱和效应的识别。","authors":"Paul D Docherty, J Geoffrey Chase, Christopher E Hann, Thomas F Lotz, J Lin, Kirsten A McAuley, Geoffrey M Shaw","doi":"10.2174/1874431101004010141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many insulin sensitivity (SI) tests identify a sensitivity metric that is proportional to the total available insulin and measured glucose disposal despite general acceptance that insulin action is saturable. Accounting for insulin action saturation may aid inter-participant and/or inter-test comparisons of insulin efficiency, and model-based glycaemic regulation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Eighteen subjects participated in 46 dynamic insulin sensitivity tests (DIST, low-dose 40-50 minute insulin-modified IVGTT). The data was used to identify and compare SI metrics from three models: a proportional model (SI(L)), a saturable model (SI(S )and Q₅₀) and a model similar to the Minimal Model (SG and SI(G)). The three models are compared using inter-trial parameter repeatability, and fit to data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The single variable proportional model produced the metric with least intra-subject variation: 13.8% vs 40.1%/55.6%, (SI(S)/I₅₀) for the saturable model and 15.8%/88.2% (SI(G)/SG) for the third model. The average plasma insulin concentration at half maximum action (I₅₀) was 139.3 mU·L⁻¹, which is comparable to studies which use more robust stepped EIC protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The saturation model and method presented enables a reasonable estimation of an overall patient-specific saturation threshold, which is a unique result for a test of such low dose and duration. The detection of previously published population trends and significant bias above noise suggests that the model and method successfully detects actual saturation signals. Furthermore, the saturation model allowed closer fits to the clinical data than the other models, and the saturation parameter showed a moderate distinction between NGT and IFG-T2DM subgroups. However, the proposed model did not provide metrics of sufficient resolution to enable confidence in the method for either SI metric comparisons across dynamic tests or for glycamic control.</p>","PeriodicalId":88331,"journal":{"name":"The open medical informatics journal","volume":" ","pages":"141-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8b/51/TOMINFOJ-4-141.PMC3096059.pdf","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The identification of insulin saturation effects during the dynamic insulin sensitivity test.\",\"authors\":\"Paul D Docherty, J Geoffrey Chase, Christopher E Hann, Thomas F Lotz, J Lin, Kirsten A McAuley, Geoffrey M Shaw\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/1874431101004010141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many insulin sensitivity (SI) tests identify a sensitivity metric that is proportional to the total available insulin and measured glucose disposal despite general acceptance that insulin action is saturable. Accounting for insulin action saturation may aid inter-participant and/or inter-test comparisons of insulin efficiency, and model-based glycaemic regulation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Eighteen subjects participated in 46 dynamic insulin sensitivity tests (DIST, low-dose 40-50 minute insulin-modified IVGTT). The data was used to identify and compare SI metrics from three models: a proportional model (SI(L)), a saturable model (SI(S )and Q₅₀) and a model similar to the Minimal Model (SG and SI(G)). The three models are compared using inter-trial parameter repeatability, and fit to data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The single variable proportional model produced the metric with least intra-subject variation: 13.8% vs 40.1%/55.6%, (SI(S)/I₅₀) for the saturable model and 15.8%/88.2% (SI(G)/SG) for the third model. The average plasma insulin concentration at half maximum action (I₅₀) was 139.3 mU·L⁻¹, which is comparable to studies which use more robust stepped EIC protocols.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The saturation model and method presented enables a reasonable estimation of an overall patient-specific saturation threshold, which is a unique result for a test of such low dose and duration. The detection of previously published population trends and significant bias above noise suggests that the model and method successfully detects actual saturation signals. Furthermore, the saturation model allowed closer fits to the clinical data than the other models, and the saturation parameter showed a moderate distinction between NGT and IFG-T2DM subgroups. However, the proposed model did not provide metrics of sufficient resolution to enable confidence in the method for either SI metric comparisons across dynamic tests or for glycamic control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88331,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The open medical informatics journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"141-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8b/51/TOMINFOJ-4-141.PMC3096059.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The open medical informatics journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874431101004010141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2010/7/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open medical informatics journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874431101004010141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2010/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
摘要
背景:尽管普遍认为胰岛素作用是饱和的,但许多胰岛素敏感性(SI)试验确定了一个与总可用胰岛素和测量葡萄糖处置成正比的敏感性指标。考虑胰岛素作用饱和可能有助于参与者间和/或测试间胰岛素效率的比较,以及基于模型的血糖调节。方法:18名受试者参加46项动态胰岛素敏感性试验(DIST,低剂量40-50分钟胰岛素改良IVGTT)。这些数据用于识别和比较来自三种模型的SI指标:比例模型(SI(L)),饱和模型(SI(S)和Q₅0)和类似于最小模型(SG和SI(G))的模型。利用试验间参数的可重复性和拟合数据对三个模型进行了比较。结果:单变量比例模型产生了主体内变化最小的度量:饱和模型为13.8% vs 40.1%/55.6% (SI(S)/I₅0),第三个模型为15.8%/88.2% (SI(G)/SG)。一半最大作用时(I₅0)的平均血浆胰岛素浓度为139.3 mU·L⁻¹,这与使用更强大的阶梯式EIC协议的研究相当。结论:所提出的饱和模型和方法能够合理估计患者特异性的总体饱和阈值,这对于如此低剂量和持续时间的试验来说是一个独特的结果。对先前公布的种群趋势和噪声以上显著偏差的检测表明,该模型和方法成功地检测到实际的饱和信号。此外,饱和度模型比其他模型更接近临床数据,饱和度参数显示NGT和IFG-T2DM亚组之间存在适度差异。然而,所提出的模型没有提供足够分辨率的指标,以使该方法能够在动态测试或血糖控制之间进行SI指标比较。
The identification of insulin saturation effects during the dynamic insulin sensitivity test.
Background: Many insulin sensitivity (SI) tests identify a sensitivity metric that is proportional to the total available insulin and measured glucose disposal despite general acceptance that insulin action is saturable. Accounting for insulin action saturation may aid inter-participant and/or inter-test comparisons of insulin efficiency, and model-based glycaemic regulation.
Method: Eighteen subjects participated in 46 dynamic insulin sensitivity tests (DIST, low-dose 40-50 minute insulin-modified IVGTT). The data was used to identify and compare SI metrics from three models: a proportional model (SI(L)), a saturable model (SI(S )and Q₅₀) and a model similar to the Minimal Model (SG and SI(G)). The three models are compared using inter-trial parameter repeatability, and fit to data.
Results: The single variable proportional model produced the metric with least intra-subject variation: 13.8% vs 40.1%/55.6%, (SI(S)/I₅₀) for the saturable model and 15.8%/88.2% (SI(G)/SG) for the third model. The average plasma insulin concentration at half maximum action (I₅₀) was 139.3 mU·L⁻¹, which is comparable to studies which use more robust stepped EIC protocols.
Conclusions: The saturation model and method presented enables a reasonable estimation of an overall patient-specific saturation threshold, which is a unique result for a test of such low dose and duration. The detection of previously published population trends and significant bias above noise suggests that the model and method successfully detects actual saturation signals. Furthermore, the saturation model allowed closer fits to the clinical data than the other models, and the saturation parameter showed a moderate distinction between NGT and IFG-T2DM subgroups. However, the proposed model did not provide metrics of sufficient resolution to enable confidence in the method for either SI metric comparisons across dynamic tests or for glycamic control.