Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 53, Issue 5, pp 771–796 | Cite as

Modeling the euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp by stochastic differential equations

  • Umberto Picchini
  • Susanne Ditlevsen
  • Andrea De GaetanoEmail author


The Euglycemic Hyperinsulinemic Clamp (EHC) is the most widely used experimental procedure for the determination of insulin sensitivity. In the present study, 16 subjects with BMI between 18.5 and 63.6 kg/m2 have been studied with a long-duration (5 hours) EHC. In order to explain the oscillations of glycemia occurring in response to the hyperinsulinization and to the continuous glucose infusion at varying speeds, we first hypothesized a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs), with limited success. We then extended the model and represented the experiment using a system of stochastic differential equations (SDEs). The latter allow for distinction between (i) random variation imputable to observation error and (ii) system noise (intrinsic variability of the metabolic system), due to a variety of influences which change over time. The stochastic model of the EHC was fitted to data and the system noise was estimated by means of a (simulated) maximum likelihood procedure, for a series of different hypothetical measurement error values. We showed that, for the whole range of reasonable measurement error values: (i) the system noise estimates are non-negligible; and (ii) these estimates are robust to changes in the likely value of the measurement error. Explicit expression of system noise is physiologically relevant in this case, since glucose uptake rate is known to be affected by a host of additive influences, usually neglected when modeling metabolism. While in some of the studied subjects system noise appeared to only marginally affect the dynamics, in others the system appeared to be driven more by the erratic oscillations in tissue glucose transport rather than by the overall glucose-insulin control system. It is possible that the quantitative relevance of the unexpressed effects (system noise) should be considered in other physiological situations, represented so far only with deterministic models.


Mathematical models Dynamical systems Diffusion processes Glucose Insulin Parameter estimation Monte Carlo methods Simulated maximum likelihood 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aït-Sahalia Y. (2002) Maximum likelihood estimation of discretely sampled diffusions: a closed-form approximation approach. Econometrica 70(1): 223–262zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergman R., Ider Y., Bowden C., Cobelli C. (1979) Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity. Am. J. Physiol. 236, E667–E677Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bibby B., Jacobsen M., Sørensen M. (2005) Estimating functions for discretely sampled diffusion-type models. In: Aït-Sahalia Y., Hansen L.(eds) Handbook of Financial Econometrics. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bibby B., Sørensen M. (1995) Martingale estimation functions for discretely observed diffusion processes. Bernoulli 1(1/2): 17–39zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dacunha-Castelle D., Florens-Zmirnou D. (1986) Estimation of the coefficients of a diffusion from discrete observations. Stochastics 19, 263–284zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davidian, M., Giltinan, D.: Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data. Chapman & Hall (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeFronzo R., Ferrannini E. (1991) Insulin resistance. a multifaceted syndrome responsible for NIDDM, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Diabetes Care 14, 173–194Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeFronzo R., Tobin J., Andres R. (1979) Glucose clamp technique: a method for quantifying insulin secretion and resistance. Am. J. Physiol. 237, E214–E223Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ditlevsen S., De Gaetano A. (2005) Stochastic vs. deterministic uptake of dodecanedioic acid by isolated rat livers. Bull. Math. Biol. 67, 547–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elerian O., Shephard N., Chib S. (2001) Likelihood inference for discretely observed nonlinear diffusions. Econometrica 69, 959–993zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrannini E., Mari A. (1998) How to measure insulin sensitivity. J. Hypertens. 16, 895–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallant A., Long J. (1997) Estimating stochastic differential equations efficiently by minimum chi-square. Biometrika 84, 124–141MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gouriroux C., Monfort A., Renault E. (1993) Indirect inference. J. Appl. Economet. 8, 85–118Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hurn A., Lindsay K., Martin V. (2003) On the efficacy of simulated maximum likelihood for estimating the parameters of stochastic differential equations. J. Time Series Anal. 24(1): 45–63zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kloeden P.E., Platen E. (1992) Numerical solution of stochastic differential equations. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Øksendal B. (2000) Stochastic differential equations, second edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olson A., Pessin J. (1996) Structure, function, and regulation of the mammalian facilitative glucose transporter gene family. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 16, 235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pedersen, A.R.: Uniform residuals for discretely observed diffusion processes. Technical. Report. 292, Department of Theoretical Statistics, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pedersen A.R. (1995) A new approach to maximum likelihood estimation for stochastic differential equations based on discrete observations. Scand. J. Statist. 22(1):55–71zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedersen, A.R.: Likelihood inference by monte carlo methods for incompletely discretely observed diffusion processes. Technical. Report. 1, Department of Biostatistics, University of Aarhus, Denmark (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Picchini U., De Gaetano A., Panunzi S., Ditlevsen S., Mingrone G.: A mathematical model of the euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp. Theor. Biol. Med. Model. 2(44) (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sacks, W.: In: A. Lajtha (ed.) Handbook of Neurochemistry, vol. 1.Plenum, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shoji I., Ozaki T. (1998) Estimation for nonlinear stochastic differential equations by a local linearization method. Stochastic Anal. Appli. 16, 733–752zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sørensen M. (2000) Prediction-based estimating functions. Economet. J. 3, 123–147zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Starke A. (1992) Determination of insulin sensitivity: methodological considerations. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 20, S17–S21Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tornøe C., Jacobsen J., Madsen H. (2004) Grey-box pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of a euglycaemic clamp study. J. Math. Biol. 48, 591–604zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wallace T., Matthews D. (2002) The assessment of insulin resistance in man. Diabet. Med. 19, 527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoshida N. (1992) Estimation of diffusion processes from discrete observations. J. Multivariate Analy. 41, 220–242zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zierler K. (1999) Whole body glucose metabolism. Am. J. Physiol. 276, E409–E426Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Umberto Picchini
    • 1
  • Susanne Ditlevsen
    • 2
  • Andrea De Gaetano
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.CNR-IASI BioMatLabRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations