...
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Physiology >Population approaches to estimate minimal model indexes of insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness using full and reduced sampling schedules.
【24h】

Population approaches to estimate minimal model indexes of insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness using full and reduced sampling schedules.

机译:人群采用完整和减少的采样时间表来估计胰岛素敏感性和葡萄糖有效性的最小模型指标。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT) interpreted with the minimal model provides individual indexes of insulin sensitivity (S(I)) and glucose effectiveness (S(G)). In population studies, the traditional approach, the standard two-stage (STS) method, fails to account for uncertainty in individual estimates, resulting in an overestimation of between-subject variability. Furthermore, in the presence of reduced sampling and/or insulin resistance, individual estimates may be unobtainable, biasing population information. Therefore, we investigated the use of two population approaches, the iterative two-stage (ITS) method and nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NM), in a population (n = 235) of insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant subjects under full (FSS, 33 samples) and reduced [RSS(240-min), 13 samples and RSS(180-min), 12 samples] IVGTT sampling schedules. All three population methods gave similar results with the FSS. Using RSS(240), the three methods gave similar results for S(I), but S(G) population means were overestimated. With RSS(180), S(I) and S(G) population means were higher for all three methods compared with their FSS counterparts. NM estimated similar between-subject variability (19% S(G), 53% S(I)) with RSS(180), whereas ITS showed regression to the mean for S(G) (0.01% S(G), 56% S(I)) and STS provided larger population variability in S(I) (29% S(G), 91% S(I)). NM provided individual estimates for all subjects, whereas the two-stage methods failed in 16-18% of the subjects using RSS(180) and 6-14% using RSS(240). We conclude that population approaches, specifically NM, are useful in studies with a sparsely sampled IVGTT ( approximately 12 samples) of short duration ( approximately 3 h) and when individual parameter estimates in all subjects are desired.
机译:用最小模型解释的静脉葡萄糖耐量试验(IVGTT)提供了胰岛素敏感性(S(I))和葡萄糖有效性(S(G))的各个指标。在人口研究中,传统的方法,即标准的两阶段(STS)方法,无法考虑单个估计中的不确定性,从而导致高估了受试者之间的变异性。此外,在减少采样和/或胰岛素抵抗的情况下,可能无法获得单个估计值,从而使总体信息产生偏差。因此,我们调查了在胰岛素敏感和胰岛素抵抗的受试者中,在全脂代谢(n = 235)下使用两种人群方法,即迭代两阶段(ITS)方法和非线性混合效应模型(NM)。 FSS,33个样本)和缩减的[RSS(240分钟),13个样本和RSS(180分钟),12个样本)IVGTT采样时间表。使用FSS,这三种总体方法均得出了相似的结果。使用RSS(240),这三种方法得出的S(I)结果相似,但是S(G)总体均值被高估了。使用RSS(180),与FSS对应物相比,这三种方法的S(I)和S(G)总体均值均更高。 NM估计RSS(180)的受试者间变异性相似(19%S(G),53%S(I)),而ITS显示回归到S(G)的平均值(0.01%S(G),56% S(I))和STS在S(I)中提供了较大的群体变异性(29%S(G),91%S(I))。 NM为所有受试者提供了单独的估计,而使用RSS(180)的受试者中有16-18%的受试者使用了两阶段方法,而使用RSS(240)的受试者中的6-14%的受试者使用了两步法。我们得出的结论是,在短期(约3小时)内使用稀疏采样的IVGTT(约12个样本)的研究中,以及在需要对所有受试者进行单独的参数估计时,总体方法尤其适用于NM。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号