Comparing surrogate indexes for insulin resistance as predictors of type 2 diabetes
Authors' conclusion
Surrogate measures based on OGTTs are best for predicting T2D, while measures based on fasting insulin perform better than those that do not measure insulin.
Study context
- Population
- Indigenous Americans from the southwest United States, followed for up to 14.5 years; clamp-measured insulin sensitivity (M) in 286 persons509 T2D cases
- Participants
- 2,260 participants
- Exposure
- 18 surrogate indexes of insulin resistance compared for prediction of T2D
- Outcome
- Predictive performance for incident T2D: HR per SD and AUC
- Follow-up
- Up to 14.5 years
Methodological detailscommunity-based longitudinal study
- Community-based longitudinal study
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
| Group | R with M | AUC |
|---|---|---|
| Matsuda | 0.691 | |
| Gutt | 0.728 | |
| Cederholm | 0.728 | |
| QUICKI | 0.644 | 0.701 |
| HOMA-IR | 0.644 | 0.701 |
| Metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR) | 0.597 | 0.688 |
| SPISE | 0.595 |
R with M
Matsuda0.691
Gutt— not stated in the abstract
Cederholm— not stated in the abstract
QUICKI0.644
HOMA-IR0.644
Metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR)0.597
SPISE0.595
AUC
Matsuda— not stated in the abstract
Gutt0.728
Cederholm0.728
QUICKI0.701
HOMA-IR0.701
Metabolic score for insulin resistance (METS-IR)0.688
SPISE— not stated in the abstract
- Gutt vs all other indexes: P < 0.05 compared with all other indexes — also Cederholm
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Comparing surrogate indexes for insulin resistance as predictors of type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Published 10 March 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →