Cited by 31,502Pancreatic function and diabetesDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and Research

Homeostasis model assessment: insulin resistance and ?-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man

Open access
Matthews, D. R., Hosker, J. P., Rudenski, A. S., Naylor, B. A., Treacher, D. F., Turner, R. C.·1985·Diabetologia

Abstract

The steady-state basal plasma glucose and insulin concentrations are determined by their interaction in a feedback loop. A computer-solved model has been used to predict the homeostatic concentrations which arise from varying degrees beta-cell deficiency and insulin resistance. Comparison of a patient's fasting values with the model's predictions allows a quantitative assessment of the contributions of insulin resistance and deficient beta-cell function to the fasting hyperglycaemia (homeostasis model assessment, HOMA). The accuracy and precision of the estimate have been determined by comparison with independent measures of insulin resistance and beta-cell function using hyperglycaemic and euglycaemic clamps and an intravenous glucose tolerance test. The estimate of insulin resistance obtained by homeostasis model assessment correlated with estimates obtained by use of the euglycaemic clamp (Rs = 0.88, p less than 0.0001), the fasting insulin concentration (Rs = 0.81, p less than 0.0001), and the hyperglycaemic clamp, (Rs = 0.69, p less than 0.01). There was no correlation with any aspect of insulin-receptor binding. The estimate of deficient beta-cell function obtained by homeostasis model assessment correlated with that derived using the hyperglycaemic clamp (Rs = 0.61, p less than 0.01) and with the estimate from the intravenous glucose tolerance test (Rs = 0.64, p less than 0.05). The low precision of the estimates from the model (coefficients of variation: 31% for insulin resistance and 32% for beta-cell deficit) limits its use, but the correlation of the model's estimates with patient data accords with the hypothesis that basal glucose and insulin interactions are largely determined by a simple feed back loop.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00280883

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 6 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Fasting plasma insulin concentration is largely determined by the glucose concentration.

    “The fasting plasma insulin concentration is largely determined by the glucose concentration [3]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] McCarthy ST, Harris F, Turner RC (1977) Glucose control of basal insulin secretion in diabetes. Diabetologia 13: 93?97 source

      The Results and Discussion (page unavailable in our copy) show that changing plasma glucose affects basal insulin secretion. But they also report markedly impaired responses in diabetic subjects, including cases where insulin remained nearly constant despite a substantial glucose decrease. The paper therefore supports glucose as an influence, but not the unqualified claim that it largely determines fasting insulin concentration. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    HOMA estimate of deficient beta-cell function correlates with the hyperglycaemic clamp estimate (Rs=0.61, p<0.01).

    “The estimate of deficient/3cell function obtained by homeostasis model assessment correlated with that derived using the hyperglycaemic clamp (R~ = 0.61, p< 0.01)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.
    • Rests on an assumption: The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).
  • Findingown data

    HOMA estimate of insulin resistance correlates with the euglycaemic clamp estimate (Rs=0.88, p<0.0001).

    “The estimate of insulin resistance obtained by homeostasis model assessment correlated with estimates obtained by use of the euglycaemic clamp (R~=0.88,p<0.0001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.
    • Rests on an assumption: The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).
  • Findingown data

    HOMA estimate of insulin resistance does not correlate with any aspect of insulin-receptor binding.

    “There was no correlation with any aspect of insulin-receptor binding.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.
    • Rests on an assumption: The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).
  • Findingown data

    HOMA estimate of insulin resistance correlates with the fasting insulin concentration (Rs=0.81, p<0.0001).

    “the fasting insulin concentration (P~ = 0.81, p < 0.0001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.
    • Rests on an assumption: The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).
  • May combine two claims. 2
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    HOMA estimates have low precision, with coefficients of variation of 31% for insulin resistance and 32% for beta-cell deficit.

    “The low precision of the estimates from the model (coefficients of variation: 31% for insulin resistance and 32% for/3-cell deficit) limits its use”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.
    • Rests on an assumption: The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).
  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The mean coefficient of variation of HOMA estimates of insulin resistance over the two reproducibility studies was 31%.

    “The mean coefficient of variation over the two studies was 31%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.
    • Rests on an assumption: The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The degree of hyperglycaemia does not correlate significantly with either the degree of abnormal beta-cell function or insulin resistance.

    “The degree of the hyperglycaemia does not correlate significantly with either the degrees of abnormal fl-cell function or insulin resistance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.
    • Rests on an assumption: The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).
3 of 3
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Normal-weight normal subjects aged <35 years have 100% beta-cell function and an insulin resistance of 1.

    “Assuming that normal-weight normal subjects aged < 35 years have 100% r-cell function, and an insulin resistance of 1, the values for a patient can be assessed from the insulin and glucose concentrations by the formulae: r-cell”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects is equivalent to the C-peptide response and is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).

    “The plasma glucose:insulin response for normal subjects, equivalent to the C-peptide response, is insulin = 5 (glucose-3.5).”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • HOMA-IR decreased significantly after the unprocessed diet compared with baseline.

    “After the unprocessed diet, fasting glucose and insulin levels tended to decrease compared to baseline and the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (Matthews et al., 1985) was significantly decreased compared to baseline.”
  • The Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HoMA-IR) was calculated according to Matthews et al.

    “The Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HoMA-IR) was calculated according to Matthews et al. [25].”
  • Surrogate markers of peripheral insulin activity, such as homeostasis model assessment and whole-body insulin sensitivity indexes, could be useful for early identification of insulin resistance before overt diabetes.

    “Surrogate markers of peripheral insulin activity, such as homeostasis model assessment and whole-body insulin sensitivity indexes, could be useful as well in the early identification of patients with IR, before overt DM sets in ().”
  • Indirect estimates of insulin resistance, such as HOMA-IR and QUICKI, are derived from fasting S-insulin and glucose concentrations and have been widely used in both nondiabetic and type 2 diabetic subjects as surrogates of insulin sensitivity.

    “ndirect estimates of insulin resistance, such as HOMA-IR 63 and QUICKI, 64 are derived from fasting S-insulin and glucose concentrations and have been widely used in both nondiabetic and type 2 diabetic subjects as surrogates of insulin sensitivity.65,66”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Normal and diabetic group sizes are reversed for the CIGMA comparison

    Minor

    The methods say the CIGMA comparison used 12 normal subjects and 11 diabetic patients, but the results report 11 normal subjects and 12 diabetic subjects.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Metropolitan Life Assurance Co (1959) Net weight standard for men and women. Stat Bull Metrol Life Found 40: 1?4
  2. Matthews DR, Hosker JP (1984) An unbiased, flexible computer programme for glucose clamping, with graphics and running statistics. Diabetologia 27: 308?309 A

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matthews, D. R., Hosker, J. P., Rudenski, A. S., Naylor, B. A., Treacher, D. F., & Turner, R. C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
1985-07
Volume
28
Issue
7
Pages
412-419
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2160234571
Cited by
31,502
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 933 · 2025: 1060 · 2024: 1240 · 2023: 1291 · 2022: 1489 · 2021: 1528 · 2020: 1424 · 2019: 1427 · 2018: 1456 · 2017: 1440 · 2016: 1481 · 2015: 1682 · 2014: 1693 · 2013: 1621 · 2012: 1518
FWCI
7.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
HOMA, insulin resistance, beta-cell function, fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin, hyperglycaemic clamp, euglycaemic clamp, intravenous glucose tolerance test, insulin receptor binding, type 2 diabetes
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Computers, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Erythrocytes, Fasting, Homeostasis, Humans, Insulin, Insulin Resistance, Islets of Langerhans, Middle Aged, Monocytes, Receptor, Insulin

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-14.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-14.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review