The hot IVGTT two-compartment minimal model: an improved version

Gianna Toffolo and Claudio Cobelli

Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, 35131 Padova, Italy


    ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

The two-compartment minimal model (2CMM) interpretation of a labeled intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT) is a powerful tool to assess glucose metabolism in a single individual. It has been reported that a derived 2CMM parameter describing the proportional effect of glucose on insulin-independent glucose disposal can take physiologically unplausible negative values. In addition, precision of 2CMM parameter estimates is sometimes not satisfactory. Here we resolve the above issues by presenting an improved version of 2CMM that relies on a new assumption on the constant component Rd0 of insulin-independent glucose disposal. Here Rd0 is not fixed to 1 mg · kg-1 · min-1 but instead is expressed as a fraction of steady-state glucose disposal. The new 2CMM is identified on the same stable labeled IVGTT data base on which the original 2CMM was formulated. A more reliable insulin-independent glucose disposal portrait is obtained while that of insulin action remains unchanged. The new 2CMM also improves the precision with which model parameters and metabolic indexes are estimated.

insulin sensitivity; glucose effectiveness; glucose production; mathematical model; parameter estimation; intravenous glucose tolerance test


    INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL MODEL (2CMM) interpretation of the labeled intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT) is a powerful tool to assess glucose metabolism in a single individual, since it allows characterization of glucose disposal in terms of indexes of insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness (10) and reconstruction of the time course of endogenous glucose production (3, 11). The model has been employed and is currently being used in several studies (e.g., Refs. 5 and 7-9). One parameter that can be calculated from the estimated model parameters is the proportional effect of glucose on insulin-independent glucose disposal, denoted as kp (min-1). We and other investigators (personal communication) have observed that sometimes kp can take on negative values, a physically unrealizable event. For instance, Vicini et al. (10) noted that this happens in 3 of the 14 subjects studied. Another reported finding is that sometimes the precision of the parameter estimates of 2CMM is not satisfactory.

This brief contribution aims at resolving the above issues by an improved version of 2CMM. In particular, we first outline the conditions under which parameter kp can take on positive values by reconsidering the assumptions underlying the model. Next, we formulate an improved version of the model that guarantees positive values of all parameters. Results on the same 14 subjects studied previously (10) are presented and compared with those obtained with the previous version of the model.


    THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL MODEL
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

The 2CMM (Fig. 1) is described by the following equations
<A><AC>q</AC><AC>˙</AC></A><SUB>1</SUB>(t)=−<FENCE>k<SUB>p</SUB> + <FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE><IT>Q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>+k</IT><SUB>21</SUB></FENCE><IT>q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>+</IT>k<SUB>12</SUB><IT>q</IT><SUB>2</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>) (1a)

<IT>q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(0)<IT>=</IT>d

<AR><R><C><A><AC>q</AC><AC>˙</AC></A><SUB>2</SUB>(t)=k<SUB>21</SUB>q<SUB>1</SUB>(t)−[k<SUB>02</SUB>+x(t)+k<SUB>12</SUB>]q<SUB>2</SUB>(t)</C><C>q<SUB>2</SUB>(0)=0</C></R></AR> (1b)

<AR><R><C><A><AC>x</AC><AC>˙</AC></A>(t)=−p<SUB>2</SUB>{<IT>x</IT>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>−</IT>s<SUB>k</SUB>[<IT>I</IT>(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>−</IT>I<SUB>b</SUB>]}</C><C>x(0)<IT>=</IT>0</C></R></AR> (1c)

g(<IT>t</IT>)<IT>=</IT><FR><NU><IT>q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE>V<SUB>1</SUB></DE></FR> (1d)
where q1(t) and q2(t) denote tracer glucose masses at time t in the first (accessible) and second (slowly equilibrating) compartments, respectively (mg/kg for a stable-label IVGTT); x(t) kcI'(t) is insulin action (min-1), where I'(t) is the concentration of insulin remote from plasma (µU/ml); I(t) and Ib are plasma insulin and basal (end-test) insulin, respectively (µU/ml); Q1(t) is total glucose mass in the accessible pool (mg/kg); g(t) is plasma tracer glucose concentration (mg/dl); d is the tracer glucose dose (mg/kg); V1 is the volume of the accessible pool (ml/kg); Rd0 (mg · kg-1 · min-1) is the constant component of glucose disposal, whereas kp (min-1) is the proportionality constant between glucose disposal from the accessible compartment and glucose mass in the same compartment; k21 (min-1), k12 (min-1), and k02 (min-1) are parameters describing glucose kinetics; and p2 = kb (min-1) and sk = kakc/kb (ml · µU-1 · min-1) are parameters describing insulin action. Capital and lowercase letters are used to denote variables related to cold and tracer glucose, respectively, and overdot notation refers to time rates of change for respective variables.


View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Two-compartment minimal model. See text for definitions.

The model assumes that pools 1 and 2 represent, respectively, plasma plus insulin-independent tissues, rapidly equilibrating with plasma, and insulin-dependent tissues (utilization depends on insulin in addition to glucose), slowly exchanging with plasma. Glucose disposal from the accessible pool, Rd1, is the sum of two components, one constant (Rd0) and the other (kpQ1) proportional to glucose mass Q1, thus accounting for the inhibition of glucose clearance by glucose itself. Thus the rate constant describing the irreversible loss of both tracer and tracee from the accessible pool is
<FR><NU>R<SUB>d1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>Q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>=</IT><FR><NU>r<SUB>d1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>=</IT>k<SUB>p</SUB> + <FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE><IT>Q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>=</IT>k<SUB>p</SUB> + <FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE>V<SUB>1</SUB>G<SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR> (2)
where rd1 is insulin-independent tracer glucose disposal and G1 is the glucose concentration in the accessible pool of volume V1.

Glucose disposal from the slowly exchanging pool is assumed to be parametrically controlled by insulin in a remote compartment represented by variable x. The rate constant describing irreversible loss of tracee and tracer from compartment 2, Rd2 and rd2, respectively, is then
<FR><NU>R<SUB>d2</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>Q</IT><SUB>2</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>=</IT><FR><NU>r<SUB>d2</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>q</IT><SUB>2</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>=</IT>k<SUB>02</SUB><IT>+x</IT>(<IT>t</IT>) (3)
Arriving at a priori unique identifiability requires two assumptions (3). First, in normal subjects in the basal steady state (ss), insulin-independent glucose disposal is three times glucose disposal from insulin-dependent tissues (R<UP><SUB>d1</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP> = 3R<UP><SUB>d2</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP>; see Refs. 4 and 6). This materializes in an additional relationship among the model parameters
k<SUB>p</SUB> + <FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE>V<SUB>1</SUB>G<SUB>b</SUB></DE></FR> = <FR><NU>3<IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> (4)
where Gb is basal (evaluated from end test values) glucose concentration (mg/dl). Moreover, Rd0 is fixed to the experimentally determined value of 1 mg · kg-1 · min-1.

The 2CMM allows the estimation of glucose effectiveness, insulin sensitivity, and plasma clearance rate.

Glucose Effectiveness

Glucose effectiveness (S<UP><SUB>G</SUB><SUP>2</SUP></UP>*; ml · kg-1 · min-1) quantifies the ability of glucose to promote its own disposal at steady state
S<SUP>2*</SUP><SUB>G</SUB> = <FENCE><FR><NU>∂R<SUB>d</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE><IT>∂</IT>G(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR></FENCE><SUB>ss</SUB> = <FENCE><IT>k</IT><SUB>p</SUB> + <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR></FENCE> V<SUB>1</SUB> (5)
where Rd = Rd1 + Rd2.

Plasma Clearance Rate

Plasma clearance rate (PCR; ml · kg-1 · min-1) measures glucose disposal at basal steady state, per unit glucose concentration
PCR = <FR><NU>R<SUP>ss</SUP><SUB>d</SUB></NU><DE>G<SUB>b</SUB></DE></FR> = <FENCE><IT>k</IT><SUB>p</SUB> + <FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE>V<SUB>1</SUB>G<SUB>b</SUB></DE></FR> + <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR></FENCE> V<SUB>1</SUB> <IT>=</IT> <FENCE>4<FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR></FENCE> V<SUB>1</SUB> (6)
where the last equality follows from Eq. 4.

Insulin Sensitivity

Insulin sensitivity (S<UP><SUB>I</SUB><SUP>2</SUP></UP>*; ml · kg-1 · min-1 per µU/ml) quantifies the ability of insulin to enhance glucose effectiveness
S<SUP>2*</SUP><SUB>I</SUB> = <FENCE><FR><NU>∂<SUP>2</SUP>R<SUB>d</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</NU><DE>∂G(<IT>t</IT>)∂I(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR></FENCE><SUB>ss</SUB> = <IT>s</IT><SUB><IT>k</IT></SUB> <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></NU><DE>(<IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB>)<SUP>2</SUP></DE></FR> V<SUB>1</SUB> (7)


    MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER KP
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

Model assumptions do not guarantee positive values for parameter kp in all circumstances. In fact, from Eq. 4, kp is the difference between the following two terms
<IT>k</IT><SUB>p</SUB> = 3 <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> − <FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE>V<SUB>1</SUB>G<SUB>b</SUB></DE></FR> (8)
and assumes positive values only when
R<SUB>d0</SUB> = 1 mg · kg<SUP>−1</SUP> · min<SUP>−1</SUP> < 3 <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>01</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> V<SUB>1</SUB>G<SUB>b</SUB> (9)
that is, from Eq. 6, when
R<SUB>d0</SUB> = 1 mg · kg<SUP>−1</SUP> · min<SUP>−1</SUP>  (10)

< 0.75 PCR G<SUB>b</SUB> = 0.75 R<SUP>ss</SUP><SUB>d</SUB>
Thus kp is positive if the constant component Rd 0, which is fixed equal to 1 mg · min-1 · kg-1 in all subjects, is less than the steady-state value of glucose disposal from the accessible compartment, which accounts for three-fourths of total glucose disposal. This condition can also be read as a lower bound for total glucose disposal at steady state
R<SUP>ss</SUP><SUB>d</SUB> > 1.33 mg · kg<SUP>−1</SUP> · min<SUP>−1</SUP> (11)
The assumption of a constant component of glucose disposal equal to 1 mg · min-1 · kg-1 is thus critical because it leads to a negative value of the kp parameter in those subjects having a total glucose disposal in the basal state <1.33 mg · min-1 · kg-1.


    AN IMPROVED 2CMM
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

To ensure positive values of kp, we formulate the needed (for a priori identifiability reasons) constraint on Rd0 in an alternative way. The idea is to relate it to total glucose disposal in steady state, by assuming that Rd0 accounts for a fixed fraction of it
R<SUB>d0</SUB> = &agr;R<SUP>ss</SUP><SUB>d</SUB> (12)
where alpha  is constant among individuals. Values of Rd0 and R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP> measured in a group of nondiabetic subjects (2), namely R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP> = 21.71 and Rd0 = 10.1 µmol · min-1kg lean body mass-1 (Rd0 is not far from 1 when expressed as mg · min-1 · kg-1), suggest to fix alpha  = 0.465. With this value for alpha , Eq. 10, which ensures positive kp, becomes
R<SUB>d0</SUB> = 0.465R<SUP>ss</SUP><SUB>d</SUB> < 0.75R<SUP>ss</SUP><SUB>d</SUB> (13)
Thus the new assumption on Rd0, Eq. 12, while still ensuring a priori identifiability of the model structure, is also able to guarantee positive values of kp. In fact, by using Eq. 12 in Eq. 8, kp becomes
 <IT>k</IT><SUB>p</SUB> = <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> (3 − 4&agr;) = <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> 1.14 (14)
and always assumes positive values.

Metabolic indexes S<UP><SUB>G</SUB><SUP>2*</SUP></UP>, PCR, and S<UP><SUB>I</SUB><SUP>2*</SUP></UP> are still defined as before and can be evaluated from model parameters by using the same expressions (Eqs. 5-7).


    MODEL IDENTIFICATION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

The new 2CMM equations to be used in normal subjects are Eqs. 1a-1d, coupled with Eq. 14 for parameter kp appearing in Eq. 1a and with the following equation, derived from Eqs. 6 and 12, for Rd0/Q1(t), also appearing in Eq. 1a
<FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE><IT>Q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>=</IT><FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> <FR><NU>G<SUB>b</SUB></NU><DE>G(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR> 4&agr; (15)
Unknown model parameters k21, k12, k02, sk, p2, and V1 were estimated in each individual by using SAAMII software (1). Weights were chosen as described previously (10).


    RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

In a previous study (10), the 2CMM was identified on stable labeled IVGTT data performed in 14 young adults. For the individual parameter estimates and metabolic indexes, we refer to Tables 1 and 2 of the original paper; here, their average values are reported (Table 1) along with the individual values of R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP> and kp (Table 2). In three subjects, R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP> is <1.33 and kp is negative, in keeping with the considerations developed above.

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1.   Estimated parameters of the 2CMM in 14 normal subjects both in its original and improved version. Precision of parameter estimates is also shown as mean CV in parenthesis


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2.   Total glucose disposal at steady state and kp parameter evaluated from parameters of the 2CMM both in its original and improved version

The improved version of 2CMM was then identified on the same data set. Its ability to describe the data is virtually the same as that of the original 2CMM, i.e., since the plots of their average residuals are virtually superimposable (data not shown).

Average values of its model parameters and metabolic indexes (Table 1 and 2) indicate that most parameters related to both glucose kinetics (V1, k21, k12k02, PCR, and R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP>) and insulin action (p2, sk, and S<UP><SUB>I</SUB><SUP>2*</SUP></UP>) are very similar to the previous ones. Among them, k02, R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP>, and PCR were statistically different (P < 0.05). This is because of small systematic differences (<3%) in most subjects. Conversely, average values of S<UP><SUB>G</SUB><SUP>2*</SUP></UP> and kp are consistently higher with the new model version, and kp (Table 2) is now positive in all subjects.

The improved 2CMM also has a better performance in terms of precision of parameter estimates, since the coefficients of variation are markedly lower for all parameters (Table 1).


    DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

We have presented a new version of 2CMM that guarantees positive values of the derived parameter kp in all individuals. This goal is accomplished by introducing a different, but still physiologically sound, assumption on Rd0. Rd0 is a nonphysiological parameter that represents the nonzero intercept of the linear approximation, in the experimental glucose range, of the relationship between insulin-independent glucose disposal and glucose concentration. In all likelihood, this relationship is a sigmoidal-shaped curve that, starting at zero (glucose utilization is 0 at 0 glucose concentration), saturates at a plateau. It is also often described by a Michaelis-Menten relationship, but the range of glucose concentrations spanned during an IVGTT does not allow for reliable estimation of the two parameters of this model. The relationship is then approximated by a straight line, having kp as a slope and Rd0 as an intercept. In the new version, Rd0 is adjusted in every subject on the basis of his/her value of total glucose disposal in the basal state, Rd0 = alpha R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP> = 0.78 ± 0.6 mg · min-1 · kg-1, which is less than the value Rd0 = 1 mg · min-1 · kg-1 assumed in the original version. The decrease in Rd0 is balanced by an increase in the glucose-dependent component of glucose disposal, and thus by an increase of kp and S<UP><SUB>G</SUB><SUP>2*</SUP></UP>, because their sum, which gives insulin-independent glucose disposal, is similar in the two model versions. All of the remaining model indexes are also similar. It is not possible to prove that the new model provides more accurate estimates of S<UP><SUB>G</SUB><SUP>2*</SUP></UP>, since we do not have a model-independent reference for it. However, we can argue that, because the new 2CMM avoids some inconsistencies of the original 2CMM (negative kp), it provides a more reliable description of the system and thus a more reliable value for S<UP><SUB>G</SUB><SUP>2*</SUP></UP>. Similarly, we can also argue that the new model should provide more reliable estimates of endogenous glucose production. Finally, with the new assumption, precision of parameter estimates considerably improves.

The 2CMM, developed here for application in normal subjects, can be extended to impaired glucose-tolerant or diabetic subjects. This, however, requires reconsideration of some model assumptions, as discussed in the APPENDIX.

In conclusion, this improved version of 2CMM, by avoiding some inconsistencies of the original 2CMM (negative kp), provides a more reliable and precise parametric portrait of glucose metabolism during an IVGTT.


    APPENDIX
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

The use of 2CMM in glucose-tolerant or diabetic subjects requires reconsideration of some model assumptions. For instance, values of Rd0 = 14.6 µmol · min-1 · kg lean body mass-1 and R<UP><SUB>d</SUB><SUP>ss</SUP></UP> = 19.2 µmol · min-1 · kg lean body mass-1 measured in diabetic subjects (2) result in a different alpha  (alpha  = 0.759). Also, the proportion between glucose disposal from insulin-independent and insulin-dependent tissues in the basal state is in all likelihood different from the 3:1 ratio assumed in normal subjects and moves to a higher value. For instance, if in diabetics a 5:1 ratio is assumed, i.e., a glucose disposal from insulin-independent tissues accounts for 83.5% of total glucose disposal in the basal state, then Eq. 14 becomes
<IT>k</IT><SUB>p</SUB> = <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> (5 − 6&agr;) = <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> 0.446 (A1)
which still guarantees positive values for kp.

In the general case, if a ratio beta /1 is assumed between glucose disposal from insulin-independent and insulin-dependent tissues under basal conditions, model equations are Eqs. 1a-1d, coupled with the following equations for kp and Rd0/Q1(t)
<IT>k</IT><SUB>p</SUB> = <FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> [&bgr; − (&bgr; + 1)&agr;] (A2)

<FR><NU>R<SUB>d0</SUB></NU><DE><IT>Q</IT><SUB>1</SUB>(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR><IT>=</IT><FR><NU><IT>k</IT><SUB>21</SUB><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB></NU><DE><IT>k</IT><SUB>02</SUB> + <IT>k</IT><SUB>12</SUB></DE></FR> <FR><NU>G<SUB>b</SUB></NU><DE>G(<IT>t</IT>)</DE></FR> (&bgr; + 1)&agr; (A3)


    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported in part by a MIUR COFIN Grant on "Stima di parametri non accessibili in sistemi fisiologici" and by Division of Research Resources Grant RR-12609.


    FOOTNOTES

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: C. Cobelli, Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Informazione, Università degli Studi di Padova, Via Gradenigo, 6a-35131 Padova, Italy (E-mail: cobelli{at}dei.unipd.it).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

First published October 1, 2002;10.1152/ajpendo.00499.2001

Received 6 November 2001; accepted in final form 27 September 2002.


    REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
THE TWO-COMPARTMENT MINIMAL...
MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETER...
AN IMPROVED 2CMM
MODEL IDENTIFICATION
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
APPENDIX
REFERENCES

1.   Barret, PHR, Bell BM, Cobelli C, Golde H, Schumitzky A, Vicini P, and Foster D. SAAMII: simulation, analysis and modeling software for tracer and pharmacokinetics studies. Metabolism 47: 484-492, 1998[ISI][Medline].

2.   Basu, A, Caumo A, Bettini F, Gelisio A, Alzaid A, Cobelli C, and Rizza RA. Impaired basal glucose effectiveness in NIDMM: contribution of defects in glucosedisappearance and production, measured using an optimized minimal model independent protocol. Diabetes 46: 421-432, 1997[Abstract].

3.   Caumo, A, and Cobelli C. Hepatic glucose production during the labelled IVGTT: estimation by deconvolution with a new minimal model. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 264: E829-E841, 1993[Abstract/Free Full Text].

4.   Cobelli, C, Toffolo G, and Ferrannini E. A model of glucose kinetics and their control by insulin: compartmental and non compartmental approaches. Math Biosci 72: 291-315, 1984[ISI].

5.   Dobbins, RL, Davis SN, Neal D, Caumo A, Cobelli C, and Cherrington AD. Rates of glucagon activation and deactivation of hepatic glucose production in conscious dogs. Metabolism 47: 135-142, 1998[ISI][Medline].

6.   Ferrannini, E, Smith JD, Cobelli C, Toffolo G, Pilo A, and DeFronzo R. Effect of insulin on the distribution and disposition of glucose in man. J Clin Invest 76: 357-364, 1985[ISI][Medline].

7.   Hovorka, R, Bannister P, Eckland DJ, Halliday D, Murley DN, Rees SE, and Young MA. Reproducibility and comparability of insulin sensitivity indexes measured by stable-label intravenous glucose tolerance test. Diabet Med 15: 234-246, 1998[ISI][Medline].

8.   Nagasaka, S, Tokuyama K, Kusaka I, Hayashi H, Rokkaku K, Nakamura T, Kawakami A, Higashiyama M, Ishikaw S, and Saito T. Endogenous glucose production and glucose effectiveness in type 2 diabetic subjects derived from stable-labeled minimal model approach. Diabetes 48: 1054-1060, 1999[Abstract].

9.   Overkamp, D, Gautier JF, Renn W, Pickert A, Scheen AJ, Schmulling RM, Eggstein M, and Lefebvre PJ. Glucose turnover in humans in the basal state and after intravenous glucose: a comparison of two models. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 273: E284-E296, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].

10.   Vicini, P, Caumo A, and Cobelli C. The hot IVGTT two-compartment minimal model: indexes of glucose effectiveness and insulin sensitivity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 273: E1024-E1031, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text].

11.   Vicini, P, Zachwieja JJ, Yarasheski KE, Bier DM, Caumo A, and Cobelli C. Glucose production during an IVGTT by deconvolution: validation with the tracer-to-tracee clamp technique. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 276: E285-E294, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text].


Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 284(2):E317-E321
0193-1849/03 $5.00 Copyright © 2003 the American Physiological Society