Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 8

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impaired Fasting Glucose in Nondiabetic Range: Is It a Marker of Cardiovascular Risk Factor Clustering?

Valentino, Giovanna, Kramer, Verónica, Orellana, Lorena, Bustamante, María José, Casasbellas, Cinthia, Adasme, Marcela, Salazar, Alejandra, Navarrete, Carlos, Acevedo, Mónica·2015·Disease Markers

Abstract

Background. Impaired fasting glucose (IFG) through the nondiabetic range (100–125 mg/dL) is not considered in the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile. Aim. To compare the clustering of CV risk factors (RFs) in nondiabetic subjects with normal fasting glucose (NFG) and IFG. Material and Methods. Cross-sectional study in 3739 nondiabetic subjects. Demographics, medical history, and CV risk factors were collected and lipid profile, fasting glucose levels (FBG), C-reactive protein (hsCRP), blood pressure (BP), anthropometric measurements, and aerobic capacity were determined. Results. 559 (15%) subjects had IFG: they had a higher mean age, BMI, waist circumference, non-HDL cholesterol, BP, and hsCRP (p<0.0001) and lower HDL (p<0.001) and aerobic capacity (p<0.001). They also had a higher prevalence of hypertension (34% versus 25%; p<0.001), dyslipidemia (79% versus 74%; p<0.001), and obesity (29% versus 16%; p<0.001) and a higher Framingham risk score (8% versus 6%; p<0.001). The probability of presenting 3 or more CV RFs adjusted by age and gender was significantly higher in the top quintile of fasting glucose (≥98 mg/dL; OR = 2.02; 1.62–2.51). Conclusions. IFG in the nondiabetic range is associated with increased cardiovascular RF clustering.

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 · 10.1155/2015/804739

Cites

4 of 4 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

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?

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 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60484-9 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1161/circulationaha.107.720847 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1161/circulationaha.109.192644 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1371/journal.pone.0072763 · DOI
  5. 10.4067/s0718-85602009000300001 · DOI
  6. 10.1161/01.HYP.0000032853.95690.26 · DOI
  7. 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1161/01.cir.97.18.1837 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1161/circulationaha.114.010815 · DOI
  10. 10.1001/archinte.162.2.209 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/s0002-9149(01)02302-5 · DOI
  12. 10.4067/S0034-98872010000600007 · DOI
  13. 10.1001/jama.2009.681 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.pcad.2013.09.002 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Valentino, G., Kramer, V., Orellana, L., Bustamante, M. J., Casasbellas, C., Adasme, M., Salazar, A., Navarrete, C., & Acevedo, M.
Venue
Disease Markers
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015
Volume
2015
Pages
1-5
ISSN
  • 0278-0240
  • 1875-8630
Cited by
8
References
4
Language
en

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

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.