Surrogate indices of insulin resistance using the Matsuda index as reference in adult men—a computational approach

Abstract

Background: Overweight and obesity, high blood pressure, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and insulin resistance (IR) are strongly associated with non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancer. Different surrogate indices of IR are derived and validated with the euglycemic–hyperinsulinemic clamp (EHC) test. Thus, using a computational approach to predict IR with Matsuda index as reference, this study aimed to determine the optimal cutoff value and diagnosis accuracy for surrogate indices in non-diabetic young adult men. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out with 93 young men (ages 18–31). Serum levels of glucose and insulin were analyzed in the fasting state and during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Additionally, clinical, biochemical, hormonal, and anthropometric characteristics and body composition (DEXA) were determined. The computational approach to evaluate the IR diagnostic accuracy and cutoff value using difference parameters was examined, as well as other statistical tools to make the output robust. Results: The highest sensitivity and specificity at the optimal cutoff value, respectively, were established for the Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) (0.91; 0.98; 3.40), the Quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI) (0.98; 0.96; 0.33), the triglyceride-glucose (TyG)-waist circumference index (TyG-WC) (1.00; 1.00; 427.77), the TyG-body mass index (TyG-BMI) (1.00; 1.00; 132.44), TyG-waist-to-height ratio (TyG-WHtR) (0.98; 1.00; 2.48), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) (1.00; 1.00; 0.53), waist circumference (WC) (1.00; 1.00; 92.63), body mass index (BMI) (1.00; 1.00; 28.69), total body fat percentage (TFM) (%) (1.00; 1.00; 31.07), android fat (AF) (%) (1.00; 0.98; 40.33), lipid accumulation product (LAP) (0.84; 1.00; 45.49), leptin (0.91; 1.00; 16.08), leptin/adiponectin ratio (LAR) (0.84; 1.00; 1.17), and fasting insulin (0.91; 0.98; 16.01). Conclusions: The computational approach was used to determine the diagnosis accuracy and the optimal cutoff value for IR to be used in preventive healthcare.