Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • Vascular Malformations (Apr 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Top
  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal
  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Version history
Article has an altmetric score of 6

See more details

Referenced in 1 policy sources
Referenced in 50 patents
427 readers on Mendeley
  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article (1077)

Advertisement

Research Article Free access | 10.1172/JCI110398

Physiologic evaluation of factors controlling glucose tolerance in man: measurement of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell glucose sensitivity from the response to intravenous glucose.

R N Bergman, L S Phillips, and C Cobelli

Find articles by Bergman, R. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Phillips, L. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Cobelli, C. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Published December 1, 1981 - More info

Published in Volume 68, Issue 6 on December 1, 1981
J Clin Invest. 1981;68(6):1456–1467. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI110398.
© 1981 The American Society for Clinical Investigation
Published December 1, 1981 - Version history
View PDF
Abstract

The quantitative contributions of pancreatic responsiveness and insulin sensitivity to glucose tolerance were measured using the "minimal modeling technique" in 18 lean and obese subjects (88-206% ideal body wt). The individual contributions of insulin secretion and action were measured by interpreting the dynamics of plasma glucose and insulin during the intravenous glucose tolerance test in terms of two mathematical models. One, the insulin kinetics model, yields parameters of first-phase (phi 1) and second-phase (phi 2) responsivity of the beta-cells to glucose. The other glucose kinetics model yields the insulin sensitivity parameters, SI. Lean and obese subjects were subdivided into good (KG greater than 1.5) and lower (KG less than 1.5) glucose tolerance groups. The etiology of lower glucose tolerance was entirely different in lean and obese subjects. Lean, lower tolerance was related to pancreatic insufficiency (phi 2 77% lower than in good tolerance controls [P less than 0.03]), but insulin sensitivity was normal (P greater than 0.5). In contrast, obese lower tolerance was entirely due to insulin resistance (SI diminished 60% [P less than 0.01]); pancreatic responsiveness was not different from lean, good tolerance controls (phi 1: P greater than 0.06; phi 2: P greater than 0.40). Subjects (regardless of weight) could be segregated into good and lower tolerance by the product of second-phase beta-cell responsivity and insulin sensitivity (phi 2 . SI). Thus, these two factors were primarily responsible for overall determination of glucose tolerance. The effect of phi 1 was to modulate the KG value within those groups whose overall tolerance was determined by phi 2 . SI. This phi 1 modulating influence was more pronounced among insulin sensitive (phi 1 vs. KG, r = 0.79) than insulin resistant (obese, low tolerance; phi 1 vs. KG, r = 0.91) subjects. This study demonstrates the feasibility of the minimal model technique to determine the etiology of impaired glucose tolerance.

Browse pages

Click on an image below to see the page. View PDF of the complete article

icon of scanned page 1456
page 1456
icon of scanned page 1457
page 1457
icon of scanned page 1458
page 1458
icon of scanned page 1459
page 1459
icon of scanned page 1460
page 1460
icon of scanned page 1461
page 1461
icon of scanned page 1462
page 1462
icon of scanned page 1463
page 1463
icon of scanned page 1464
page 1464
icon of scanned page 1465
page 1465
icon of scanned page 1466
page 1466
icon of scanned page 1467
page 1467
Version history
  • Version 1 (December 1, 1981): No description

Article tools

  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal

Metrics

Article has an altmetric score of 6
  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article (1077)

Go to

  • Top
  • Abstract
  • Version history
Advertisement
Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts

Referenced in 1 policy sources
Referenced in 50 patents
427 readers on Mendeley
See more details