Cargando…

Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()

The ENGINE study evaluated noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS) for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT). The AGT detection performance of SFS was compared to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A(1C) (A1C). The study was a head-to-head comparison of SFS to FPG and A1C i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hull, Edward L., Matter, Nathaniel I., Olson, Byron P., Ediger, Marwood N., Magee, Andrea J., Way, Jeff F., Vugrin, Kay E., Maynard, John D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685041/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29159089
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2014.06.003
_version_ 1783278577476698112
author Hull, Edward L.
Matter, Nathaniel I.
Olson, Byron P.
Ediger, Marwood N.
Magee, Andrea J.
Way, Jeff F.
Vugrin, Kay E.
Maynard, John D.
author_facet Hull, Edward L.
Matter, Nathaniel I.
Olson, Byron P.
Ediger, Marwood N.
Magee, Andrea J.
Way, Jeff F.
Vugrin, Kay E.
Maynard, John D.
author_sort Hull, Edward L.
collection PubMed
description The ENGINE study evaluated noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS) for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT). The AGT detection performance of SFS was compared to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A(1C) (A1C). The study was a head-to-head comparison of SFS to FPG and A1C in an at-risk population of 507 subjects, with no prior diagnosis of diabetes, each of whom received a 75 g, two-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Subjects were measured by SFS on multiple days in fasting and non-fasting states. SFS data were acquired and analyzed with the SCOUT DS(®) device (VeraLight, Albuquerque, NM, USA). Disease truth was AGT, defined as OGTT ≥ 7.8 mmol/L. Sensitivity, false positive rate (FPR), ROC area, and equal error rate (EER) for detection of AGT were computed. The reproducibility of SFS and FPG was assessed. The AGT sensitivity of SFS at the device's recommended screening threshold of 50 was 75.2%, higher than that of FPG (thresholds of 5.6 mmol/L or 6.1 mmol/L) and A1C (thresholds of 5.7% or 6.0%). The SFS FPR was 42.1%, comparable to an A1C threshold of 5.7% (FPR = 43.5%). The EERs of SFS, FPG and A1C were similar, as were the partial ROC areas for FPRs of 20–50%. The reproducibility of SFS was 7.7% versus 8.1% for FPG. SFS had similar AGT detection performance to FPG and A1C and is a viable alternative to screening individuals for AGT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5685041
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56850412017-11-20 Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance() Hull, Edward L. Matter, Nathaniel I. Olson, Byron P. Ediger, Marwood N. Magee, Andrea J. Way, Jeff F. Vugrin, Kay E. Maynard, John D. J Clin Transl Endocrinol Research Paper The ENGINE study evaluated noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy (SFS) for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT). The AGT detection performance of SFS was compared to fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A(1C) (A1C). The study was a head-to-head comparison of SFS to FPG and A1C in an at-risk population of 507 subjects, with no prior diagnosis of diabetes, each of whom received a 75 g, two-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Subjects were measured by SFS on multiple days in fasting and non-fasting states. SFS data were acquired and analyzed with the SCOUT DS(®) device (VeraLight, Albuquerque, NM, USA). Disease truth was AGT, defined as OGTT ≥ 7.8 mmol/L. Sensitivity, false positive rate (FPR), ROC area, and equal error rate (EER) for detection of AGT were computed. The reproducibility of SFS and FPG was assessed. The AGT sensitivity of SFS at the device's recommended screening threshold of 50 was 75.2%, higher than that of FPG (thresholds of 5.6 mmol/L or 6.1 mmol/L) and A1C (thresholds of 5.7% or 6.0%). The SFS FPR was 42.1%, comparable to an A1C threshold of 5.7% (FPR = 43.5%). The EERs of SFS, FPG and A1C were similar, as were the partial ROC areas for FPRs of 20–50%. The reproducibility of SFS was 7.7% versus 8.1% for FPG. SFS had similar AGT detection performance to FPG and A1C and is a viable alternative to screening individuals for AGT. Elsevier 2014-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5685041/ /pubmed/29159089 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2014.06.003 Text en © 2014 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).
spellingShingle Research Paper
Hull, Edward L.
Matter, Nathaniel I.
Olson, Byron P.
Ediger, Marwood N.
Magee, Andrea J.
Way, Jeff F.
Vugrin, Kay E.
Maynard, John D.
Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()
title Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()
title_full Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()
title_fullStr Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()
title_full_unstemmed Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()
title_short Noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()
title_sort noninvasive skin fluorescence spectroscopy for detection of abnormal glucose tolerance()
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5685041/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29159089
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcte.2014.06.003
work_keys_str_mv AT hulledwardl noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance
AT matternathanieli noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance
AT olsonbyronp noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance
AT edigermarwoodn noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance
AT mageeandreaj noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance
AT wayjefff noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance
AT vugrinkaye noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance
AT maynardjohnd noninvasiveskinfluorescencespectroscopyfordetectionofabnormalglucosetolerance