Search

The single point insulin sensitivity estimator (SPISE) is a recently developed fasting index for insulin sensitivity based on triglycerides, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, and body mass index. SPISE has been validated in juveniles and adults; still, its role during childhood remains unclear. To evaluate the age- and sex-specific distribution of SPISE, its correlation with established fasting indexes and its application as a prognostic marker for future dysglycemia during childhood and adolescence were assessed. We performed linear modeling and correlation analyses on a cross-sectional cohort of 2107 children and adolescents (age 5 to 18.4 years) with overweight or obesity. Furthermore, survival analyses were conducted upon a longitudinal cohort of 591 children with overweight/obesity (1712 observations) with a maximum follow-up time of nearly 20 years, targeting prediabetes/dysglycemia as the end point. The SPISE index decreased significantly with age (−0.34 units per year, p < 0.001) among children and adolescents with overweight and obesity. Sex did not have an influence on SPISE. There was a modest correlation between SPISE and established fasting markers of insulin resistance (R = −0.49 for HOMA-IR, R = −0.55 for QUICKI-IR). SPISE is a better prognostic marker for future dysglycemia (hazard ratio (HR) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60–7.51, p < 0.01) than HOMA-IR and QUICKI-IR (HR 2.44, 95% CI 1.24–4.81, p < 0.05). The SPISE index is a surrogate marker for insulin resistance predicting emerging dysglycemia in children with overweight or obesity, and could, therefore, be applied to pediatric cohorts that lack direct insulin assessment.

In Germany, with the exception of the five federal supreme courts, court organization is a responsibility of the Länder (federal states). In some of the Länder, so-called employee profiles (“Anforderungsprofile“) have been established for judicial office. These lists attempt to describe criteria for certain judicial positions. They are applied in the process of promotion but also serve as an indicator for initial appointment.The European picture with respect to individual evaluation of judges is extremely diverse. In preparation for this paper, the author attempted to ascertain the situation in the Council of Europe member states. The results of this survey (to which 23 members of the CCJE have replied) are listed in Appendix I.The general difficulty of professional evaluation of judges lies in the limits that have to be observed for constitutional reasons. In Germany, the overall rule of every evaluation is that there has to be a reliable factual basis. The evaluator is under a duty not to omit relevant aspects, to consider all the facts that make part of the picture, not to select arbitrarily but to try to paint a true and full picture of the person who is being evaluated. In the case of judges, it is unacceptable to comment on the core of judicial decision-making. Evaluations may be challenged in the administrative court on grounds of fact as well as on grounds of law. En Alemania, con la excepción de las cinco cortes supremas federales, la organización judicial es responsabilidad de los Länder (estados federales). En algunos de estos Länder, se han establecido los denominados perfiles de empleados (“Anforderungsprofile”) para la oficina judicial. Estas listas pretenden describir los criterios para determinados cargos judiciales. Se aplican en los procesos de promoción, pero también sirven como un indicador para el nombramiento inicial.El panorama europeo respecto a la evaluación individual de los jueces es muy diverso. Preparando este trabajo, el autor intentó determinar la situación de los Estados miembros del Consejo de Europa. Los resultados de esta encuesta (a la que respondieron 23 miembros del CCJE) se enumeran en el Apéndice I.La dificultad general de la evaluación profesional de los jueces estriba en los límites que se deben respetar por razones constitucionales. En Alemania, la regla general de cada evaluación es que tiene que haber una base factual fiable. El evaluador tiene la obligación de no omitir aspectos relevantes, debe considerar todos los hechos que forman parte de la imagen general, sin seleccionar arbitrariamente, sino tratando de reflejar una imagen verdadera y completa de la persona que está siendo evaluada. En el caso de los jueces, es inaceptable comentar la base de la toma de decisiones judiciales. Las evaluaciones pueden ser impugnadas en el tribunal administrativo por razones de hecho y no sólo por razones de derecho. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2533857