Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 179

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison between surrogate indexes of insulin sensitivity/resistance and hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp estimates in rats

Open access
Muniyappa, Ranganath, Chen, Hui, Muzumdar, Radhika H., Einstein, Francine H., Yan, Xu, Yue, Lilly Q., Barzilai, Nir, Quon, Michael J.·2009·American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism

Abstract

Assessing insulin resistance in rodent models gives insight into mechanisms that cause type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome. The hyperinsulinemic euglycemic glucose clamp, the reference standard for measuring insulin sensitivity in humans and animals, is labor intensive and technically demanding. A number of simple surrogate indexes of insulin sensitivity/resistance have been developed and validated primarily for use in large human studies. These same surrogates are also frequently used in rodent studies. However, in general, these indexes have not been rigorously evaluated in animals. In a recent validation study in mice, we demonstrated that surrogates have a weaker correlation with glucose clamp estimates of insulin sensitivity/resistance than in humans. This may be due to increased technical difficulties in mice and/or intrinsic differences between human and rodent physiology. To help distinguish among these possibilities, in the present study, using data from rats substantially larger than mice, we compared the clamp glucose infusion rate (GIR) with surrogate indexes, including QUICKI, HOMA, 1/HOMA, log (HOMA), and 1/fasting insulin. All surrogates were modestly correlated with GIR ( r = 0.34–0.40). Calibration analyses of surrogates adjusted for body weight demonstrated similar predictive accuracy for GIR among all surrogates. We conclude that linear correlations of surrogate indexes with clamp estimates and predictive accuracy of surrogate indexes in rats are similar to those in mice (but not as substantial as in humans). This additional rat study (taken with the previous mouse study) suggests that application of surrogate insulin sensitivity indexes developed for humans may not be appropriate for determining primary outcomes in rodent studies due to intrinsic differences in metabolic physiology. However, use of surrogates may be appropriate in rodents, where feasibility of clamps is an obstacle and measurement of insulin sensitivity is a secondary outcome.

Overview

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.00397.2009

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 179

Metadata

Authors
Muniyappa, R., Chen, H., Muzumdar, R. H., Einstein, F. H., Yan, X., Yue, L. Q., Barzilai, N., & Quon, M. J.
Venue
American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism
Published
2009-11
Volume
297
Issue
5
Pages
E1023-E1029
ISSN
  • 0193-1849 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1555
OpenAlex
W2096253518
Cited by
179
References
6
FWCI
11.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison between surrogate indexes of insulin sensitivity/resistance and hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp estimates in rats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/ajpendo.00397.2009
The paper
Muniyappa, R., Chen, H., Muzumdar, R. H., Einstein, F. H., Yan, X., Yue, L. Q., Barzilai, N., & Quon, M. J. (2009). Comparison between surrogate indexes of insulin sensitivity/resistance and hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp estimates in rats. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00397.2009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.