Cited by 198Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsPancreatic function and diabetesDiabetes Management and Research

Minimal model estimation of glucose absorption and insulin sensitivity from oral test: validation with a tracer method

Open access
Dalla Man, Chiara, Caumo, Andrea, Basu, Rita, Rizza, Robert, Toffolo, Gianna, Cobelli, Claudio·2004·American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism

Abstract

Measuring insulin sensitivity during the physiological milieu of oral glucose perturbation, e.g., a meal or an oral glucose tolerance test, would be extremely valuable but difficult since the rate of appearance of absorbed glucose is unknown. The reference method is a tracer two-step one: first, the rate of appearance of glucose (R a mealref) is reconstructed by employing the tracer-to-tracee ratio clamp technique with two tracers and a model of non-steady-state glucose kinetics; next, this R a mealref is used as the known input of a model describing insulin action on glucose kinetics to estimate insulin sensitivity (S Iref). Recently, a nontracer method based on the oral minimal model (OMM) has been proposed to estimate simultaneously the above quantities, denoted R a meal and S I, respectively, from plasma glucose and insulin concentrations measured after an oral glucose perturbation. This last method has obvious advantages over the tracer method, but its domain of validity has never been assessed against a reference method. It is thus important to establish whether or not the “nontracer” R a meal and S I compare well with the “tracer” R a mealref and S Iref . We do this comparison on a database of 88 subjects, and it is very satisfactory: R a meal profiles agree well with the R a mealref and correlation of S Iref with S I is r = 0.86 ( P < 0.0001). We conclude that OMM candidates as a reliable tool to measure both the rate of glucose absorption and insulin sensitivity from oral glucose tests without employing tracers.

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 · 10.1152/ajpendo.00319.2003

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • Use of the meal minimal model in conjunction with the triple tracer method permits robust model assessments of indices of insulin action on the periphery (SI) and on the liver (SIL), glucose effectiveness (SG), insulin secretion, and β-cell function (disposition index).

    “Furthermore, use of the meal minimal model in conjunction with the triple tracer method permits robust model assessments of indices of insulin action on the periphery (SI) and on the liver (SIL), glucose effectiveness (SG), insulin secretion, and β-cell function (disposition index).[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]”

    From Developing the UVA/Padova Type 1 Diabetes Simulator: Modeling, Validation, Refinements, and Utility (2023) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Database and Protocol section describes a triple-tracer meal, and the Tracer Method and Parameter Estimation sections report estimates of insulin sensitivity (SI) and glucose effectiveness (SG). The paper does not establish separate peripheral and liver insulin-action indices (SI and SIL), or model estimates of insulin secretion or β-cell disposition index. It also says that this analysis uses only two of the three tracers. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dalla Man, C., Caumo, A., Basu, R., Rizza, R., Toffolo, G., & Cobelli, C.
Affiliations
University of Padua (IT)
Venue
American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
Published
2004-10
Volume
287
Issue
4
Pages
E637-E643
ISSN
  • 0193-1849 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1555
OpenAlex
W2113594895
Cited by
198
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 14
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (RR-00585)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG14383, P01AG014383)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (EB 01975, P41EB001975)
  • National Center for Research Resources (RR-00585, M01RR000585)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
oral minimal model, insulin sensitivity, oral glucose tolerance test
MeSH terms
Absorption, Algorithms, Blood Glucose, Carbon Isotopes, Deuterium, Eating, Female, Glucose, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Insulin, Insulin Resistance, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Tritium, Glucose Clamp Technique, Databases, Factual

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