Cited by 446Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Treatment and ManagementPancreatic function and diabetes

Role of Insulin Secretion and Sensitivity in the Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program

Open access
The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group·2005·Diabetes

Abstract

Insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction, two factors central to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes, were studied in relation to the development of diabetes in a group of participants with impaired glucose tolerance in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) at baseline and after specific interventions designed to prevent diabetes. Participants were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 1,082), metformin (850 mg twice a day) (n = 1,073), or intensive lifestyle intervention (n = 1,079). The diabetes hazard rate was negatively associated with baseline insulin sensitivity (hazard rate ratio = 0.62-0.94 per SD difference, depending on treatment group and measure of sensitivity) and with baseline insulin secretion (hazard rate ratio = 0.57-0.76 per SD). Improvements in insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity were associated with lower hazard rates in all treatment arms (hazard rate ratio = 0.46-0.95 per SD increase and 0.29-0.79 per SD increase, respectively). In multivariate models that included the three metabolic variables (changes in body weight, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion) each significantly and independently predicted progression to diabetes when adjusted for the other two variables. The intensive lifestyle intervention, which elicited the greatest reduction in diabetes incidence, produced the greatest improvement in insulin sensitivity and the best preservation of beta-cell function after 1 year, whereas the placebo group, which had the highest diabetes incidence, had no significant change in insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function after 1 year. In the metformin group, diabetes risk, insulin sensitivity, and beta-cell function at 1 year were intermediate between those in the intensive lifestyle and placebo groups. In conclusion, higher insulin secretion and sensitivity at baseline and improvements in response to treatment were associated with lower diabetes risk in the DPP. The better preventive effectiveness of intensive lifestyle may be due to improved insulin sensitivity concomitant with preservation of beta-cell function.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diabetes.54.8.2404

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 19 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Correlations between year 1 changes in metabolic variables were similar among treatment groups, except correlations between 1/fasting insulin and either CIR or IGR were higher in the metformin group.

    “Correlations between the year 1 changes in metabolic variables were similar among the treatment groups, except for the correlations between 1/fasting insulin and either CIR or IGR, which were higher in the metformin group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Improvements in insulin secretion were associated with lower hazard rates for diabetes in all treatment arms (hazard rate ratio 0.46-0.95 per SD increase).

    “Improvements in insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity were associated with lower hazard rates in all treatment arms (hazard rate ratio ‫؍‬ 0.46 -0.95 per SD increase and 0.29 -0.79 per SD increase, respectively).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Hazard ratios were constant over time.
  • Findingown data

    Hazard rates for developing diabetes were positively associated with baseline fasting plasma glucose, 120-min plasma glucose, and A1C.

    “The hazard rates for developing diabetes were positively associated with baseline fasting plasma glucose, 120-min plasma glucose, and A1C (Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Hazard ratios were constant over time.
  • Findingown data

    In this large cohort of individuals with IGT, each variable (insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion) had an independent effect on the risk of developing diabetes.

    “In this large cohort of individuals with IGT, our results clearly confirm this relationship because each variable had an independent effect on the risk of developing diabetes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Fasting and 30- and 120-min glucose values decreased significantly in the lifestyle group.

    “Fasting and 30-and 120-min glucose values decreased significantly in the lifestyle group”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 24
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Impaired fasting glycemia and impaired glucose tolerance are strong risk factors for type 2 diabetes.

    “The latter two are strong risk factors for type 2 diabetes (1-6).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [1] The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 346:393–403,2002 source
    • cites [2] Modan M, Karasik A, Halkin H, Fuchs Z, Lusky A, Shitrit A, Modan B: Effect of past and concurrent body mass index on prevalence of glucose intolerance and type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes and on insulin response: the Israel study of glucose intolerance, obesity and hypertension. Diabetologia 29:82–89,1986 source

      The BMI INTERVAL section describes impaired glucose tolerance progressing to Type 2 diabetes, and the Discussion likewise describes worsening from impaired tolerance to diabetes. But the paper does not address impaired fasting glycemia or establish that both conditions are strong risk factors. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [3] Saad MF, Knowler WC, Pettitt DJ, Nelson RG, Mott DM, Bennett PH: The natural history of impaired glucose tolerance in the Pima Indians. N Engl J Med 319:1500–1506,1988 source
    • cites [4] Lillioja S, Mott DM, Howard BV, Bennett PH, Yki-Jarvinen H, Freymond D, Nyomba BL, Zurlo F, Swinburn B, Bogardus C: Impaired glucose tolerance as a disorder of insulin action: longitudinal and cross-sectional studies in Pima Indians. N Engl J Med 318:1217–1225,1988 source
    • cites [5] Edelstein SL, Knowler WC, Bain RP, Andres R, Barrett-Connor EL, Dowse GK, Haffner SM, Pettitt DJ, Sorkin JD, Muller DC, Collins VR, Hamman RF: Predictors of progression from impaired glucose tolerance to NIDDM: an analysis of six prospective studies. Diabetes 46:701–710,1997 source
    • cites [6] Jensen CC, Cnop M, Hull RL, Fujimoto WY, Kahn SE, American Diabetes Association GENNID Study Group: β-Cell function is the major determinant of oral glucose tolerance in four ethnic groups in the United States. Diabetes 51:2170–2178,2002 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At 1 year, there was less reduction in fasting insulin in the metformin group than in the lifestyle group, with lifestyle participants having the greatest reduction throughout all years of follow-up.

    “At 1 year, there was less reduction in fasting insulin in the metformin than in the lifestyle group, with the lifestyle participants having the greatest reduction throughout all years of follow-up.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    ISI and 1/fasting insulin were highly correlated at baseline (Spearman r = 0.99).

    “ISI and 1/fasting insulin were, as expected, highly correlated at baseline (Spearman r ϭ 0.99).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    With additional follow-up data, the risk reductions (95% CI) of developing diabetes were 30% (16-41%) for metformin and 55% (45-63%) for lifestyle, each compared with placebo.

    “Encompassing of the additional follow-up data yielded risk reductions (95% CI) of developing diabetes of 30% (16 -41%) for metformin and 55% (45-63%) for lifestyle, each compared with placebo.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A1C, proinsulin, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion also predicted the development of diabetes in these high-risk individuals.

    “In addition, we found that A1C, proinsulin, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion also predicted the development of diabetes in these high-risk individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among all participants, including those who developed diabetes, fasting glucose, insulin, and proinsulin concentrations were significantly lower than placebo at the first annual visit in the metformin and lifestyle groups and increased during the 2nd and 3rd years, with levels remaining significantly lower than in the placebo group.

    “Among all participants, including those who developed diabetes, fasting glucose, insulin, and proinsulin concentrations were significantly lower than placebo at the first annual visit in the metformin and the lifestyle groups and increased during the 2nd and 3rd years, with the levels remaining significantly lower than in the placebo group (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the placebo group, there was a significant increase in 30-min glucose and a significant decrease in 120-min glucose levels.

    “In the placebo group, however, there was a significant increase in 30-min and a significant decrease in the 120-min glucose levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Lifestyle and metformin treatments reduced the incidence of diabetes but did not change the independent effects of insulin sensitivity and secretion on the risk for diabetes; those with the lowest sensitivity and secretion within each treatment group still had the greatest risk, whereas those with the highest insulin sensitivity and secretion had uniformly low risk regardless of intervention group

    “Whereas lifestyle and metformin treatments reduced the incidence of diabetes, they did not change the independent effects of insulin sensitivity and secretion on the risk for diabetes, so that those individuals with the lowest sensitivity and secretion within each treatment group still had the greatest risk, whereas those with the highest insulin sensitivity and secretion had uniformly low risk”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Changes in weight and proinsulin over time were strong predictors of diabetes, with decreased weight and decreased proinsulin predicting a lower hazard of diabetes in all treatment arms.

    “Changes in weight and proinsulin over time were strong predictors of diabetes, with decreased weight and decreased proinsulin predicting a lower hazard of diabetes in all treatment arms (Fig. 4B and D).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Hazard ratios were constant over time.
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The metformin group showed a more modest improvement in insulin sensitivity (ISI and 1/fasting insulin, P < 0.001) with a significant decrease in insulin secretion (IGR, P < 0.001).

    “The metformin group showed a more modest improvement in insulin sensitivity (ISI and 1/fasting insulin, P Ͻ 0.001) with a significant decrease in insulin secretion (IGR, P Ͻ 0.001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Improved insulin sensitivity was associated with a decrease in the risk of developing diabetes, with the lifestyle intervention being the most effective.

    “In addition, improved insulin sensitivity was also associated with a decrease in the risk of developing diabetes, with the lifestyle intervention again being the most effective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the placebo group, there were no significant changes in either estimate of insulin sensitivity, a significant decrease in insulin secretion (IGR, P = 0.03), but no significant change in β-cell function.

    “Finally, in the placebo group there were no significant changes in either estimate of insulin sensitivity, a significant decrease in insulin secretion (IGR, P ϭ 0.03) but no significant change in ␤-cell function”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The intensive lifestyle intervention produced the greatest improvement in insulin sensitivity and the best preservation of β-cell function after 1 year.

    “The intensive lifestyle intervention, which elicited the greatest reduction in diabetes incidence, produced the greatest improvement in insulin sensitivity and the best preservation of ␤-cell function after 1 year”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The lifestyle group had the greatest improvement in insulin sensitivity (ISI and 1/fasting insulin, P < 0.001), and this was associated with a significant decrease in insulin secretion (IGR, P = 0.008).

    “The lifestyle group had the greatest improvement in insulin sensitivity (ISI and 1/fasting insulin, P Ͻ 0.001), and this was associated with a significant decrease in insulin secretion (IGR, P ϭ 0.008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the current data, the relationship between insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity was not hyperbolic but was well described as nonlinear.

    “The relationships in the current data were not hyperbolic but were well described as nonlinear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The risk of developing diabetes was lowest among participants in the lifestyle arm, intermediate among those assigned to metformin, and highest among placebo participants across the range of baseline glycemic variables.

    “The risk of developing diabetes was lowest among participants in the lifestyle arm, intermediate among those assigned to metformin, and highest among placebo participants across the range of baseline glycemic variables.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Treatment effects on diabetes risk were seen regardless of categories of sensitivity and secretion, except in the lowest risk categories (high insulin sensitivity and secretion), in which hazard rates were uniformly low.

    “In general, these treatment effects were seen regardless of the categories of sensitivity and secretion, except in the lowest risk categories (high insulin sensitivity and secretion), in which hazard rates were uniformly low.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Diabetes Prevention Program found that the risk for developing type 2 diabetes was reduced by 58% in the intensive lifestyle group and 31% in the metformin-treated group compared with the placebo-treated group.

    “found that the risk for developing type 2 diabetes was reduced by 58 and 31% in the intensive lifestyle and metformin-treated groups, respectively, compared with the placebo-treated group (1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 346:393–403,2002 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These findings are compatible with lifestyle having the greatest effect to preserve β-cell function and being the more effective intervention to reduce the rate of development of diabetes.

    “These findings are compatible, with lifestyle having the greatest effect to preserve ␤-cell function and it being the more effective intervention to reduce the rate of development of diabetes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three scenarios (no change, improvement, decrease in β-cell function) exhaustively characterize possible changes in the insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Changes in insulin secretion may reflect decreased β-cell function if there is a shift to the left of or below the curve relating insulin sensitivity and insulin response.

    “Finally, a decrease in ␤-cell function would be characterized by a shift to the left of or below the curve.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    β-cell function was unchanged in the lifestyle intervention group while declining in the control group.

    “Thus, it would appear that ␤-cell function was unchanged in the lifestyle intervention group while declining in the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three scenarios (no change, improvement, decrease in β-cell function) exhaustively characterize possible changes in the insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Ninety-five percent of participants completed their first annual visit.

    “Ninety-five percent of participants completed their first annual visit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A hyperbolic relationship between insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity has previously been described when more direct measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity were used.

    “This hyperbolic relationship has previously been described when more direct measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity were used (29).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Kahn SE, Prigeon RL, McCulloch DK, Boyko EJ, Bergman RN, Schwartz MW, Neifing JL, Ward WK, Beard JC, Palmer JP, Porte D Jr: Quantification of the relationship between insulin sensitivity and B-cell function in human subjects: evidence for a hyperbolic function. Diabetes 42:1663–1672,1993 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Lifestyle intervention and, to a lesser extent, metformin enhanced β-cell function and improved insulin sensitivity, leading to a reduced risk for developing diabetes.

    “Lifestyle intervention and, to a lesser extent, metformin enhanced ␤-cell function and improved insulin sensitivity, leading to a reduced risk for developing diabetes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The baseline relationship between insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity is the same across treatment groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three scenarios (no change, improvement, decrease in β-cell function) exhaustively characterize possible changes in the insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Whereas change in body weight was a strong predictor of the risk of developing diabetes in the DPP, the interventions probably had differential effects on other variables or direct effects in the liver or muscle even after accounting for insulin secretion.

    “Thus it appears that whereas change in body weight was a strong predictor of the risk of developing diabetes in the DPP, the interventions probably had differential effects on other variables or direct effects in the liver or muscle even after accounting for insulin secretion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Similar findings of the effect of lifestyle intervention have been reported for the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study.

    “Similar findings of the effect of lifestyle intervention have been reported for the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (30).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Uusitupa M, Lindi V, Louheranta A, Salopuro T, Lindström J, Tuomilehto J, Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group: Long-term improvement in insulin sensitivity by changing lifestyles of people with impaired glucose tolerance: 4-year results from the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study. Diabetes 52:2532–2538,2003 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the metformin group, the decrease in insulin secretion was not as large as might be expected from the concomitant change in insulin sensitivity, and therefore can be interpreted as improved secretion relative to sensitivity.

    “but whereas the absolute response declined, this decrease was not as large as might be expected from the concomitant change in insulin sensitivity and therefore can be interpreted as improved secretion relative to sensitivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The processing of proinsulin to insulin is never complete, so not all proinsulin molecules are cleaved, resulting in a small quantity of proinsulin being secreted along with insulin and C-peptide.

    “this process is never complete so that not all proinsulin molecules are cleaved, resulting in a small quantity of proinsulin being secreted along with insulin and C-peptide (36 -38).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [36] Kitabchi AE: Proinsulin and C-peptide a review. Metabolism 26:547–587,1977 source
    • cites [37] Mykkanen L, Haffner SM, Hales CN, Ronnemaa T, Laakso M: The relation of proinsulin, insulin, and proinsulin-to-insulin ratio to insulin sensitivity and acute insulin response in normoglycemic subjects. Diabetes 46:1990–1995,1997 source
    • cites [38] Reaven GM, Chen Y-DI, Hollenbeck CB, Sheu WHH, Ostrega D, Polonsky KS: Plasma insulin, C-peptide, and proinsulin concentrations in obese and nonobese individuals with varying degrees of glucose tolerance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 76:44–48,1993 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The effect of metformin and intensive lifestyle in reducing the incidence of diabetes is related in part to their ability to shift the relationship between insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in a direction compatible with an improvement in β-cell function, with lifestyle being more effective in doing so.

    “The effect of metformin and intensive lifestyle in reducing the incidence of diabetes is related in part to their ability to shift the relationship between insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in a direction compatible with an improvement in ␤-cell function, with lifestyle being more effective in doing so.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The baseline relationship between insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity is the same across treatment groups.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three scenarios (no change, improvement, decrease in β-cell function) exhaustively characterize possible changes in the insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Production of insulin is dependent on the proteolytic processing in the β-cell secretory granule of proinsulin to insulin and C-peptide.

    “production of insulin is dependent on the proteolytic processing in the ␤-cell secretory granule of proinsulin to insulin and C-peptide (35).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Duckworth WC, Kitabchi AE, Heinemann M: Direct measurement of plasma proinsulin in normal and diabetic subjects. Am J Med 53:418–427,1972 source
30 of 30
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Hazard ratios were constant over time.

    “Hazard ratios were assumed to be constant over time.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Deterioration of either insulin sensitivity or insulin secretion is critical in determining the progression of hyperglycemia.

    “Although the relative importance of decreased insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes has been debated, it is generally accepted that deterioration of either or both is critical in determining the progression of hyperglycemia.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Insulin resistance and β-cell dysfunction are central characteristics of type 2 diabetes, impaired fasting glycemia, and impaired glucose tolerance.

    “Insulin resistance and ␤-cell dysfunction are two well-established characteristics of type 2 diabetes, impaired fasting glycemia, and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The baseline relationship between insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity is the same across treatment groups.

    “The curve represents the regression line of the logarithm of estimated insulin secretion as a linear function of the logarithm of estimated insulin sensitivity for all participants at baseline.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The three scenarios (no change, improvement, decrease in β-cell function) exhaustively characterize possible changes in the insulin secretion-sensitivity relationship.

    “changes in insulin secretion may reflect one of three scenarios regarding ␤-cell function.”
5 of 5

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?

  • In the Diabetes Prevention Program, greater baseline β-cell function and insulin sensitivity contributed independently to the restoration of normal glucose tolerance following lifestyle changes.

    “In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), greater baseline β-cell function and insulin sensitivity contributed independently to the restoration of NGT following lifestyle changes ( 65 , 66 ).”

    From β-Cell Failure in Type 2 Diabetes: Postulated Mechanisms and Prospects for Prevention and Treatment (2014) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Results section ('Prediction of diabetes by multiple metabolic factors,' page not provided) reports that higher baseline insulin sensitivity and secretion were associated with lower diabetes risk, including in the lifestyle group. The Discussion (page not provided) says each had an independent effect on diabetes risk. The paper does not establish that these baseline measures independently contributed to restoration of normal glucose tolerance, which is a different outcome. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Higher diabetes incidence in all treatment groups was found among DPP individuals with lower measures of insulin secretory response at baseline.

    “Indeed, higher diabetes incidence in all treatment groups was found among individuals with lower measures of insulin secretory response at baseline in the DPP (22).”
  • Successful lifestyle interventions seem to improve insulin sensitivity and β-cell function.

    “Successful lifestyle interventions seem to improve insulin sensitivity and β-cell function.92,93”

    From Prediabetes: a high-risk state for diabetes development (2012) · cites this paper as [93]

  • Insulin resistance could increase the risk of Alzheimer's disease through both cerebrovascular and amyloid-beta related mechanisms.

    “Since insulin resistance could increase the risk of AD through both cerebrovascular and Aβ related mechanisms [23]”
  • Large intervention studies with lifestyle interventions and drugs like metformin have shown that it is feasible to decrease hyperinsulinemia and the risk of diabetes.

    “Large intervention studies with lifestyle interventions and drugs like metformin have shown that it is feasible to decrease hyperinsulinemia and the risk of diabetes (The Diabetes Prevention Program Research, 2005) and is possible that these interventions could extend to decreasing the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

    From Adiposity, hyperinsulinemia, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease (2008) · cites this paper as The Diabetes Prevention Program Research, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
Affiliations
George Washington University (US)
Corresponding author
The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group
Venue
Diabetes
Published
2005-08-01
Volume
54
Issue
8
Pages
2404-2414
ISSN
  • 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-327X
OpenAlex
W11872906
Cited by
446
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 31
FWCI
16.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Institute on Aging
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK048489)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • National Center for Research Resources
  • Office of Women's Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
Keywords
type 2 diabetes prevention, insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, insulin resistance, beta-cell dysfunction, impaired glucose tolerance, metformin, intensive lifestyle intervention, Diabetes Prevention Program, diabetes incidence, weight change
MeSH terms
Insulin Secretion, Adult, Blood Glucose, Body Weight, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Fasting, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Resistance, Islets of Langerhans, Life Style, Male, Metformin, Middle Aged, Placebos

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 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

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