Cited by 67Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Treatment and Management

Real-life glycaemic profiles in non-diabetic individuals with low fasting glucose and normal HbA1c: the A1C-Derived Average Glucose (ADAG) study

Open access
on behalf of the ADAG Study Group, Borg, R., Kuenen, J. C., Carstensen, B., Zheng, H., Nathan, D. M., Heine, R. J., Nerup, J. +2 more·2010·Diabetologia

Abstract

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Real-life glycaemic profiles of healthy individuals are poorly studied. Our aim was to analyse to what extent individuals without diabetes exceed OGTT thresholds for impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and diabetes. METHODS: In the A1C-Derived Average Glucose (ADAG) study, 80 participants without diabetes completed an intensive glucose monitoring period of 12 weeks. From these data, we calculated the average 24 h glucose exposure as time spent above different plasma glucose thresholds. We also derived indices of postprandial glucose levels, glucose variability and HbA(1c). RESULTS: We found that 93% of participants reached glucose concentrations above the IGT threshold of 7.8 mmol/l and spent a median of 26 min/day above this level during continuous glucose monitoring. Eight individuals (10%) spent more than 2 h in the IGT range. They had higher HbA(1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), age and BMI than those who did not. Seven participants (9%) reached glucose concentrations above 11.1 mmol/l during monitoring. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Even though the non-diabetic individuals monitored in the ADAG study were selected on the basis of a very low level of baseline FPG, 10% of these spent a considerable amount of time at glucose levels considered to be 'prediabetic' or indicating IGT. This highlights the fact that exposure to moderately elevated glucose levels remains under-appreciated when individuals are classified on the basis of isolated glucose measurements.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-010-1741-9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Most studies of CGM profiles in healthy, nondiabetic individuals have had small sample sizes or used early-generation CGM systems, which were less accurate than current devices.

    “Most studies of CGM profiles in healthy, nondiabetic individuals have had small sample sizes or used early-generation CGM systems, which were less accurate than current devices (3)(4)(5)(6)(7).”

    From Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles in Healthy Nondiabetic Participants: A Multicenter Prospective Study (2019) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Discussion describes earlier CGM studies of 32 and 15 people, supporting the small-sample part of the claim; Methods reports that this study used CGM in 80 nondiabetic participants. Neither section says the systems were early-generation or compares their accuracy with current devices. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The overall results of this study are in agreement with previous studies despite the different generations of CGM systems used in most of the studies.

    “The overall results of our study are in agreement with previous studies (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)17) despite the different generations of CGM systems used in most of the studies.”

    From Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles in Healthy Nondiabetic Participants: A Multicenter Prospective Study (2019) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Discussion says previous smaller CGM studies found similar glucose patterns, supporting the claim of overall agreement. The cited paper does not compare generations of CGM systems, so it does not support that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [2]Nathan DM Kuenen J Borg R Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values Diabetes Care 2008 31 1473 1478 10.2337/dc08-0545 18540046 PMC2742903 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [3]Kahn R Follow-up report on the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2003 26 3160 3167 10.2337/diacare.26.11.3160 14578255 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4]Mazze RS Strock E Wesley D Characterizing glucose exposure for individuals with normal glucose tolerance using continuous glucose monitoring and ambulatory glucose profile analysis Diabetes Technol Ther 2008 10 149 159 10.1089/dia.2007.0293 18473688 · DOI
  4. [5]Derosa G Salvadeo SAT Mereu R Continuous glucose monitoring system in free-living healthy subjects: results from a pilot study Diabetes Technol Ther 2009 11 159 169 10.1089/dia.2008.0101 19267581 · DOI
  5. [7]No authors listed (2009) International Expert Committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care 32:1327–1334 PMC2699715 19502545

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
on behalf of the ADAG Study Group, Borg, R., Kuenen, J. C., Carstensen, B., Zheng, H., Nathan, D. M., Heine, R. J., Nerup, J., Borch-Johnsen, K., & Witte, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Borg, R.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2010-04-16
Volume
53
Issue
8
Pages
1608-1611
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2106592062
Cited by
67
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Bayer HealthCare
  • European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Diabetesforeningen
  • Abbott Diabetes Care
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
non-diabetic individuals, impaired glucose tolerance, prediabetes, HbA1c, average glucose, continuous glucose monitoring, postprandial blood glucose, glycemic variability, fasting blood glucose, glucose exposure, diabetes risk
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Fasting, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Monitoring, Ambulatory

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.

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