Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 5;19(6):e0303346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303346

The relationship between heart rate variability and glucose clearance in healthy men and women

Abigail Nickel 1,*, Robert Buresh 1, Cherilyn McLester 1, Andre Canino 1, Gabe Wilner 1, Keilah Vaughan 1, Pedro Chung 1, Brian Kliszczewicz 1,*
Editor: Hidetaka Hamasaki2
PMCID: PMC11152311  PMID: 38837971

Abstract

Heart rate variability (HRV) is a non-invasive indicator of the activity of the autonomic nervous system, which regulates many physiological functions including metabolism. The purpose of this study was to quantify the relationship between resting markers of HRV and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) response. Eighteen healthy individuals (10 males, 8 females, (23.8±2.9 years) underwent a 10-minute resting HRV recording. The final five minutes were evaluated via Kubios HRV Standard for: root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of normal-to-normal sinus beats (SDNN), high frequency (HF), and low frequency (LF). A standard 2-hour OGTT was then administered. Glucose was measured via finger stick before, 30-minutes post, 1-hour post, and 2-hours post OGTT. Pearson correlations demonstrated that RMSSD, SDNN, HF and LF were strongly correlated to fasting blood glucose (FBG) for the group (p<0.05) but not for glucose area under the curve (AUC). When analyzed by sex, only males demonstrated significant correlations between AUC and RMSSD, SDNN, and LF (p<0.05). An independent samples t-test revealed no sex differences for FBG, AUC, RMSSD, SDNN, HF and LF. These findings provide new and interesting insights into the relationship of autonomic activity and glucose uptake, highlighting sex-based relationships.

Introduction

The continuous rise in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes globally [1] warrants the development of new and innovative approaches to identify evidence of metabolic dysfunction, and to explore connections with other systems that may lead to chronic conditions (e.g., cardiovascular disease). As a general function of homeostasis, multiple systems respond to internal and external stimuli in order to maintain systemic norms (e.g., temperature, pH, glucose). Regulation of plasma glucose is one such system that is susceptible to frequent fluctuations due to a multitude of autonomic nervous system (ANS) mediated factors such as intestinal absorption, glycogenolysis, and gluconeogenesis [2]. A more thorough understanding of these fluctuations may prove beneficial in both applied and clinical settings, particularly if these fluctuations can be predictive.

The ANS has widespread innervation to nearly every organ system, with prominent effects on the cardiovascular and digestive systems through the balance of activity from the parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) divisions [3]. The ANS plays a key role in regulating a litany of physiological processes [4] and is considered a good indicator of physiological readiness and overall homeostatic gain (i.e., sensitivity to change) [5]. The ANS can be noninvasively evaluated through variations in cardiovascular activity referred to as heart rate variability (HRV) [6]. This is accomplished through the measurement of timing between beat-to-beat intervals using an electrocardiogram or a beat-to-beat detecting device. Recently, HRV has been used as a tool for a variety of applications ranging from a prognostic indicator for cardiovascular conditions [7], to predictions of peek aerobic performance and even recovery status for exercise training [8].

One of the most common tests used to evaluate metabolic function and glucose control is the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). This test involves the consumption of a standardized amount of glucose and measurements of blood glucose concentration to allow for the assessment of glucose clearance at various time points over a two-hour period. In a recent study performed by Prasertsri et. al, HRV was shown to be acutely altered with the consumption of a high glucose beverage, demonstrating a relationship between the two measures; however, the authors did not speculate as to the cause or extent of this relationship [9]. In healthy individuals, the ANS can exert a number of influences on glucose regulation. For instance, PSNS activity promotes insulin secretion and subsequent reduction of blood glucose [10], while SNS activity mobilizes glucose resulting in the elevation of blood glucose [11]. Importantly, HRV is a noninvasive measure of ANS activity, and may prove to be an effective tool in assessing and assisting in the explanation of variations in glucose regulation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of HRV on the results of an OGTT in healthy participants.

Materials and methods

Participants

Prior to data collection, the Institutional Review Board approved all testing procedures and protocols. Ten apparently healthy males (24.0 ± 2.0 years) and eight apparently healthy females (23.5 ± 3.6 years) participated in the current study. Each volunteer was made aware of the procedures and risks associated with the study and signed a written informed consent and completed a health history questionnaire. Exclusion criteria included those who were pregnant, missing a limb, reported having cardiovascular, pulmonary, or metabolic conditions, had a body mass index (BMI) outside of the normal range (18.5–24.9 kg‧m-2) or were taking medication that interfered with metabolism. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined through self-report through the health history questionnaire. Recruitment took place via word of mouth primarily from the university community and the surrounding metropolitan area from June 30, 2022 until May 1, 2023. Prior to visiting the lab, participants were instructed to wear clothing that was light and comfortable, fast for a minimum of 12 hours (except water) and avoid exercise and alcohol for 24 hours leading up to the lab visit.

Experimental design

Participants visited the institution’s exercise physiology laboratory on one occasion and completed data collection between the hours of 7:00 am and 12:00 pm. Upon arrival to the lab, participants’ height and weight was measured via stadiometer (WB-3000, Tanita, Tokyo, Japan). Next, a body composition assessment via bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) (InBody 770, Cerritos, CA) was conducted. Participants were then taken back to a quiet, dimly lit room and instructed to lay in a supine position on an examination bed for 10-minutes while resting HRV was recorded on the Finapres NOVA (Finapres Medical Systems, Enschede, the Netherlands). Three ECG electrodes were placed inferior to the right clavicle, inferior to the left clavicle, and about two centimeters medial to the anterior superior iliac spine after applying abrasive and wiping the skin sites. After HRV collection, a urine sample was collected to confirm hydration status through urine specific gravity (USG). Immediately following was the measurement of baseline capillary blood glucose via finger stick and glucometer analysis (Bayer, Contour NextOne, Leverkusen, Germany). Participants were then instructed to consume entirely a standard OGTT beverage containing 75 grams of glucose (TrutolTM) within a one-minute period. After consumption, the time was recorded to indicate the 30, 60, and 120-minute marks for the subsequent glucose readings. During each waiting period, participants were instructed to limit movement in order to minimize muscular activity and its known effects on blood glucose clearance. Once the final glucose reading was recorded, the visit was concluded, and participants were allowed to leave the laboratory.

Heart rate variability analysis

Measurements for the current study were collected using the Finapres NOVA, and ECG files were transferred to Kubios software (version 3.0.5). The first five minutes of the 10-minute recording were discarded for acclimatation. The last five minutes of resting time points were analyzed for HRV and RHR. Kubios software was used to analyze time domain and frequency domain measures. Detrending was set to smoothing priors with a smoothing parameter of 500, lambda of 0.035 Hz, and Interpolation rate of 4 Hz.

To detect the presence of artifact or noise, the Kubios “low artifact correction” filter with a ± 0.35 sec sensitivity to R-R abnormalities compared to the local average was used [1214].

The time and frequency domain measures of HRV chosen for the current study include the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), standard deviation of normal-to-normal sinus beats (SDNN), low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF). LF and HF were determined through the Fast Fourier Transformation algorithm (FFT), which analyzed the spectrum of frequencies and separated them into the categories of LF (0.04–0.15 Hz) and HF (0.15–0.4 Hz). LF indicated both PNS and SNS activity, while HF and RMSSD represented PNS activity [15].

Urine specific gravity

Participants provided a urine sample which was used to quantify hydration status via USG. Distilled water was dropped into the well on the refractometer to establish a zero point. Thereafter, a few drops of urine were applied into the well and analyzed, and USG was then recorded.

Oral glucose tolerance test and area under the curve

Estimation of total area under the curve (AUC) for glucose tolerance was calculated from the OGTT results using Tai’s Mathematical Model [16]. This model divides the total AUC into small individual segments whose areas can be precisely determined according to existing geometric formulas and then added together to obtain the total AUC as seen in Fig 1 [16]. Tai’s formula was chosen for the current study as it allows glucose samples to be taken with differing time intervals while still precisely determining the total AUC and expressed as arbitrary units (AU) [16].

Fig 1. Correlation between group AUC and HRV measures.

Fig 1

Menstrual cycle survey

Upon entering the lab, female participants were asked to record the estimated start date of their last known menstrual cycle. The estimated cycle phase was determined by counting back from the lab visit to the reported start of last known cycle (Table 1). Cycle phases were defined as menstruation (day 1–5), follicular (day 6–13), ovulation (day 14), and luteal (day 15–28) using a 28-day cycle [17].

Table 1. Female participants in each estimated phase of their menstrual cycle.

Estimated menstrual cycle phase reported on V1 Number of Participants Days into Cycle
Menstruation (Day 1–5) 1 5
Follicular (Day 6–13) 2 8 ± 1.4
Ovulation (Day 14) 0 N/A
Luteal (Day 15–28) 5 27.6 ± 5.4
Total Mean/SD 8 19.9 ± 11.5

Statistical analysis

All data were entered and analyzed in SPSS version 28 software (Chicago, IL). Missing or excluded data were omitted listwise, i.e., observations with missing values on any of the variables in the analysis were omitted from analysis in SPSS. A Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test was performed on all HRV data and found that normality was not violated, and data did not require log transformation. Measurements of RMSSD (ms), SDNN (ms), LF (ms2), HF (ms2) were analyzed. To determine whether there was a relationship between HRV and OGTT, two-tailed Pearson product correlations were conducted between the AUC for glucose during OGTT and HRV measurements including HF, LF, SDNN and RMSSD. Data was then spilt by sex and two-tail Pearson product correlations were conducted between the AUC and HRV measurements including HF, LF, SDNN and RMSSD. A two-tailed Independent Samples T-test was used to determine sex-based differences between AUC, RMSSD, SDNN, HF, and LF. Alpha level was set at 0.05.

Results

Eighteen apparently healthy volunteers completed the study: ten males and eight females. Two males and one female were removed from data analysis due to artifact or ECG recording error, 15 total participants were analyzed, eight males and seven females. Descriptive data can be seen in Table 2. Participant fasting times were; Total—13.1 +/- 1.8 hours, Males—12.6 +/- 2.1 hours, and Females—13.7 +/- 1.2 hours. All females reported a start of their last menstrual cycle within a time period suggestive of a normal menstrual cycle (Table 1). Group OGTT results can be seen in Fig 2. Results of the Pearson correlations demonstrated that RMSSD, SDNN, HF and LF were strongly correlated to fasting blood glucose (FBG) for the total group (p<0.05). The Pearson correlations can be seen in Table 3. There were no observed correlations for AUC and RMSSD, SDNN, HF, LF and RHR for the group (p>0.05) (Table 3, Fig 1). When sexes were analyzed separately, we found significant correlations in males between AUC and RMSSD, SDNN, and LF (p<0.05), with a trend toward significance in males between AUC and HF (r = .690, p = .058) (Fig 3). No significant correlations between AUC and HF, RMSSD, RHR were observed in females (p>0.05) (Fig 4). Independent Samples T-test revealed no sex differences for AUC, RMSSD, SDNN, HF and LF (p>0.05) (Table 4).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Measure All Males Females
(n = 15) (n = 8) (n = 7)
Height (cm) 171.9 ± 10 178.7 ± 8.4 164.2 ± 6.8
Weight (kg) 66.5 ± 34 88.7 ± 8.8 69.8 ± 16.3
Body Composition (% fat) 22.9 ± 10 17.2 ± 6.5 29.4 ± 16.2
Age (yrs) 24.2 ± 2.8 24.3 ± 2.1 24.1 ±3.7

Fig 2. Capillary blood glucose over time.

Fig 2

Values presented as means ± SD. Significantly different form PRE * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.001.

Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients.

AUC FBG
RMSSD (ms) Group r = .365, p = .181 r = .512, p = .043 *
Male r = .736, p = .037 * r = .829, p = .006 *
Female r = .038, p = .936 r = -.022, p = .962
SDNN (ms) Group r = .303, p = .273 r = .502, p = .048 *
Male r = .754, p = .031 * r = .903, p < .001 *
Female r = -.020, p = .966 r = -.068, p = .885
HF (ms2) Group r = .397, p = .142 r = .594, p = .015 *
Male r = .690, p = .058 r = .916, p < .001 *
Female r = .136, p = .771 r = .009, p = .985
LF (ms2) Group r = .245, p = .378 r = .550, p = .027 *
Male r = .865, p = .006 * r = .703, p = .035 *
Female r = -.316, p = .490 r = -.115, p = .807
RHR (bpm) Group r = .024, p = .933 r = -.225, p = .421
Male r = -.357, p = .386 r = -.322, p = .437
Female r = .470, p = .287 r = .682, p = .092

AUC = Area under the curve, FBG = Fasting blood glucose, RMSSD = Root mean square of successive differences, SDNN = Standard deviation of normal sinus beats, HF = High frequency, LF = Low frequency.

* = Significant Correlation

Fig 3. Correlation between male AUC and HRV measures.

Fig 3

Fig 4. Correlation between female AUC and HRV measures.

Fig 4

Table 4. Independent samples t-test between males and females.

Mean ± SD (M) Mean ± SD (F) p
RMSSD (ms) 60.2 ± 34.6 57.5 ± 25.7 .902
SDNN (ms) 50.3 ± 20.1 46.3 ± 19.4 .748
HF (ms2) 1736 ± 1843 1554 ± 1238 .910
LF (ms2) 877 ± 478 480 ± 280 .075
AUC (AU) 258 ± 43 280 ± 52 .438
FBG (mg/dL) 93.4 ± 9 86.1 ± 7 .081

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of HRV on the results of an OGTT in healthy participants. The primary findings revealed that resting HRV demonstrated a strong positive correlation to the FBG measures for the total group. When accounting for sex, this relationship remained in males but was lost in females. When evaluating the relationship between HRV and glucose AUC derived from the OGTT, no relationships were observed among any of the assessed markers. When accounting for sex, only males showed a significant relationship between HRV and AUC.

The participants in this study were considered healthy, normal weight individuals with an average capillary FBG of 89.9 ± 8.2 mg/dL. Normal fasting glucose measures are well established to be between 80–100 mg/dL [18], which is a vital range to maintain proper pressure gradient to support glucose entry into tissue cells. The role of the ANS in glucose regulation is multifaceted, with variables that go beyond the scope of the current study but are worth mentioning as they may relate to the current findings. During periods of hypoglycemia, the mobilization of glycogen occurs in order to maintain appropriate glucose concentrations, with 70–90% of this response mediated by the ANS [19]. This response is believed to be mediated by both branches; however, early-stage hypoglycemia (75–85 mg/dL) results in PSNS activation of pancreatic α-cell islets [19] and subsequent glucagon secretion [20], although α-cell islets recruitment increases once FBG is below 100 mg/dL [19]. Our study supports these notions by demonstrating a positive relationship between FBG and HRV markers RMSSD and HF, which are widely accepted markers of PSNS, presenting a possible rationale for the positive correlation observed.

It is well established that the SNS branch, when activated, results in the mobilization of glycogen via glucose elevating hormones–epinephrine, norepinephrine, glucagon, and growth hormone [21]. It is generally believed that the elevation of SNS activity results in the concomitant measurable withdrawal of PSNS activity; however, previous findings in our lab found increases in circulating neurohormones epinephrine and norepinephrine, without changes in RMSSD or HF [22]. The findings of the current study are reflective of this, with SDNN and LF believed to be reflective of both PSNS and SNS activity, demonstrating a positive relationship with FBG. These results conflict with those of Rothberg et al. who demonstrated no relationships in resting HRV and FBG in healthy adults [23]. Furthermore, when this group looked at the same relationship in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, a negative relationship was reported which is in contrast to the positive relationship in the current study. One potential reason for the discrepancy between the findings of our study and that of Rothberg et al. may be the body position in which HRV was recorded. Supine positions, which were used in this study, sometimes yield higher indices of vagal tone than seated postures [24], which may explain the differences. The negative relationship observed in the type 2 diabetic group may be related to the disease or the age of that population, and this, too, may contribute to the contrast in our findings.

Historically, the OGTT has been used for the quantification of glycemia and screening for detection of diabetes [25]. However, understanding variables that relate to the regulation of glucose may lead to advances in the prediction of acute glycemic dysregulation (e.g., hyper or hypoglycemia). While our study demonstrated a relationship between FBG and HRV, when evaluating the AUC in relation to HRV metrics for the group, no significant correlations were observed (Table 3). These specific findings are similar to those of Rothberg et al. who also reported no relationship between resting HRV and post-prandial blood glucose values [23]. In contrast, Saito et al. reported that reductions in HRV were associated with lower insulin sensitivity, and a reduced insulin sensitivity index in non-overweight individuals [26].

Although we found no relationship between HRV and OGTT results in the full sample, we did see a significant correlation between HRV and glucose AUC in males (Fig 4), whereas female participants exhibited no such relationship. An independent samples t-test revealed no significant differences between male and female resting values of FBG, AUC and HRV metrics (Table 4). Though this study was not designed to evaluate the mechanisms related to our observations, it may be that the lack of a relationship between markers of HRV and AUC in females can be explained, in part, by hormonal fluctuations related to different stages in the menstrual cycle. Data collected support this possibility, as each female participant reported the first day of their last menstrual cycle and were on average 19.9 ± 11.5 days past the first day of their last menstrual cycle, making it plausible that various stages of the menstrual cycle were represented (Table 1). Brar et al. suggest that hormonal changes related to menstrual cycle alters ANS activity, with elevated SNS activity observed in later phases of the menstrual cycle compared to the predominant PSNS activity in earlier phases [27]. Future projects should account and control for menstrual cycle in order to determine the possible mechanism for sex-based differences.

Limitations

Though this study was a novel attempt to evaluate glucose regulation, it was not without limitations. This study used a small sample size, which is an inherit limitation regardless of significant findings. Future studies should use a more robust sample size to better corollate physical and physiological contributors to HRV based OGTT relationship. Furthermore, this study was not designed to control for menstrual cycle. Future studies should enroll female participants in a fashion to control for stage of menstrual cycle. This study used single-day HRV to predict same-day metabolic function; though appropriate for comparing to same-day OGTT, this value may be stronger when compared to a weekly average, given the levels of variability we observed in these markers. Future studies should extend the number of measures glucose time points beyond the two-hour mark in order to capture the downward tail of the OGTT and capture full glucose clearance. The measurement of glucose concentration in this study was performed using finger-prick, future projects should use vein collection to reduce standard error. Lastly, plasma insulin may provide additional insight for this study.

Conclusion

Heart rate variability was not predictive of oral glucose tolerance performance when participants were evaluated as a whole. However, a positive relationship was observed when the data were separated by sex, specifically in males. Though mechanisms were not identified, these findings provide insights into the relationship between autonomic activity and glucose uptake. In addition to already-established applications, HRV as an index of ANS activity may provide meaningful background and mechanistic information to that derived from metabolic assessments. Future research should control for menstrual cycle to determine if a relationship also exists in females.

Data Availability

Data are available from the BioStudies repository at DOI: 10.6019/S-BSST1348 (accession number S-BSST1348).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Xie J, Wang M, Long Z, Ning H, Li J, Cao Y, et al. Global burden of type 2 diabetes in adolescents and young adults, 1990–2019: systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMJ. 2022. Dec 7;379:e072385. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Aronoff SL, Berkowitz K, Shreiner B, Want L. Glucose Metabolism and Regulation: Beyond Insulin and Glucagon. Diabetes Spectr. 2004. Jul 1;17(3):183–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gibbons CH. Basics of autonomic nervous system function. Handb Clin Neurol. 2019;160:407–18. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-64032-1.00027-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Vanderlei LCM, Pastre CM, Hoshi RA, Carvalho TD de, Godoy MF de. Basic notions of heart rate variability and its clinical applicability. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc Orgao Of Soc Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2009;24(2):205–17. doi: 10.1590/s0102-76382009000200018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Botek M, McKune AJ, Krejci J, Stejskal P, Gaba A. Change in performance in response to training load adjustment based on autonomic activity. Int J Sports Med. 2014. Jun;35(6):482–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1354385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Capilupi MJ, Kerath SM, Becker LB. Vagus Nerve Stimulation and the Cardiovascular System. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020. Feb 3;10(2):a034173. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a034173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Billman GE, Huikuri HV, Sacha J, Trimmel K. An introduction to heart rate variability: methodological considerations and clinical applications. Front Physiol. 2015. Feb 25;6:55. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kiviniemi AM, Hautala AJ, Kinnunen H, Nissilä J, Virtanen P, Karjalainen J, et al. Daily exercise prescription on the basis of HR variability among men and women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010. Jul;42(7):1355–63. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e3181cd5f39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Prasertsri P, Booranasuksakul U, Naravoratham K, Trongtosak P. Acute Effects of Passion Fruit Juice Supplementation on Cardiac Autonomic Function and Blood Glucose in Healthy Subjects. Prev Nutr Food Sci. 2019. Sep;24(3):245–53. doi: 10.3746/pnf.2019.24.3.245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lundqvist MH, Almby K, Abrahamsson N, Eriksson JW. Is the Brain a Key Player in Glucose Regulation and Development of Type 2 Diabetes? Front Physiol. 2019. Apr 26;10:457. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00457 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hyun U, Sohn JW. Autonomic control of energy balance and glucose homeostasis. Exp Mol Med. 2022. Apr;54(4):370–6. doi: 10.1038/s12276-021-00705-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nakamura FY, Pereira LA, Cal Abad CC, Cruz IF, Flatt AA, Esco MR, et al. Adequacy of the Ultra-Short-Term HRV to Assess Adaptive Processes in Youth Female Basketball Players. J Hum Kinet. 2017. Mar 12;56:73–80. doi: 10.1515/hukin-2017-0024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tarvainen MP, Niskanen JP, Lipponen JA, Ranta-Aho PO, Karjalainen PA. Kubios HRV—heart rate variability analysis software. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014;113(1):210–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.07.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Alcantara JMA, Plaza-Florido A, Amaro-Gahete FJ, Acosta FM, Migueles JH, Molina-Garcia P, et al. Impact of Using Different Levels of Threshold-Based Artefact Correction on the Quantification of Heart Rate Variability in Three Independent Human Cohorts. J Clin Med. 2020. Jan 23;9(2):325. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Shaffer F, Ginsberg JP. An Overview of Heart Rate Variability Metrics and Norms. Front Public Health. 2017. Sep 28;5:258. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tai MM. A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves. Diabetes Care. 1994. Feb;17(2):152–4. doi: 10.2337/diacare.17.2.152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Reed BG, Carr BR. The Normal Menstrual Cycle and the Control of Ovulation. In: Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Blackman MR, Boyce A, Chrousos G, Corpas E, et al., editors. Endotext [Internet]. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com, Inc.; 2000. [cited 2023 Aug 10]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279054/ [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Diabetes Testing [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2023. [cited 2023 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/getting-tested.html [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Taborsky GJ, Mundinger TO. Minireview: The Role of the Autonomic Nervous System in Mediating the Glucagon Response to Hypoglycemia. Endocrinology. 2012. Mar;153(3):1055–62. doi: 10.1210/en.2011-2040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Quesada I, Todorova MG, Alonso-Magdalena P, Beltrá M, Carneiro EM, Martin F, et al. Glucose induces opposite intracellular Ca2+ concentration oscillatory patterns in identified alpha- and beta-cells within intact human islets of Langerhans. Diabetes. 2006. Sep;55(9):2463–9. doi: 10.2337/db06-0272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sprague JE, Arbeláez AM. Glucose Counterregulatory Responses to Hypoglycemia. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev PER. 2011. Sep;9(1):463–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kliszczewicz B, Bechke E, Williamson C, Bailey P, Hoffstetter W, McLester J, et al. The influence of citrus aurantium and caffeine complex versus placebo on the cardiac autonomic response: a double blind crossover design. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2018. Jul 24;15(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12970-018-0240-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rothberg LJ, Lees T, Clifton-Bligh R, Lal S. Association Between Heart Rate Variability Measures and Blood Glucose Levels: Implications for Noninvasive Glucose Monitoring for Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016. Jun;18(6):366–76. doi: 10.1089/dia.2016.0010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chuangchai W, Pothisiri W. Postural Changes on Heart Rate Variability among Older Population: A Preliminary Study. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2021;2021:6611479. doi: 10.1155/2021/6611479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jagannathan R, Neves JS, Dorcely B, Chung ST, Tamura K, Rhee M, et al. The Oral Glucose Tolerance Test: 100 Years Later. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes Targets Ther. 2020. Oct 19;13:3787–805. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S246062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Saito I, Hitsumoto S, Maruyama K, Nishida W, Eguchi E, Kato T, et al. Heart Rate Variability, Insulin Resistance, and Insulin Sensitivity in Japanese Adults: The Toon Health Study. J Epidemiol. 2015;25(9):583–91. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20140254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Brar TK, Singh KD, Kumar A. Effect of Different Phases of Menstrual Cycle on Heart Rate Variability (HRV). J Clin Diagn Res JCDR. 2015. Oct;9(10):CC01–4. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/13795.6592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hidetaka Hamasaki

30 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-28922The relationship between heart rate variability and glucose clearance in healthy men and womenPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nickel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 15 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hidetaka Hamasaki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your valuable work to PLOS ONE.

The editor also has a concern for the small sample size.

I would appreciate it if you could address the issues raised by the reviewers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have found significant correlations between heart rate variability (HRV) markers and fasting blood glucose levels in healthy individuals. However, they did not find any significant correlations between HRV markers and the area under the curve (AUC) of glucose. When analyzing by sex, only men showed significant correlations between AUC and RMSSD, SDNN, and LF. There were no sex differences for fasting blood glucose levels, AUC, RMSSD, SDNN, HF, and LF.

However, it is important to note that this is a small study with a limited sample size. a sample size of at least 30 is recommended for statistical tests because it is large enough to approximate the true distribution of the population being studied.

Was the HRV derived from ECG with your own algorithm, or it was just getting from the ECG monitor?

authors should explain why they chose the statistical measures.

The study you provided does not mention the use of a menstrual cycle survey in the correlations of measures, why did the authors performed that suevey, the same for the Urine Specific Gravity?

Reviewer #2: The study by Nickel et al. investigated the impact of oral glucose on the extent of HRV, considered an important biomarker for metabolic health. The participants were given a 75-g glucose load, and HRV was measured before its ingestion. Different HRV calculations/parameters were used to determine its association with the OGTT response (assessed as the AUC). The results showed that HRV parameters were correlated with capillary glucose concentration. Considering sex in the statistical model, correlations disappeared in women but not in men. Furthermore, HRV and AUC parameters were also correlated in the group of men. The research was properly conducted; methods are appropriate, and results might have certain implications regarding the HRV field. I have the following constructive comments that hopefully can further increase the quality of this manuscript.

Method section:

The study was carefully designed and conducted. However, the sample size was small (n=18; 10 men and 8 women). Could authors mention this issue (I missed this information in the Method section)? As the small sample size included in the study might impact data interpretation. Thank you.

Could the authors better explain what “apparently healthy individuals” is? Did authors determine that using blood samples, personal/medical interviews, questionnaires or is self-reported? Please provide more information as the paper is focused on “healthy individuals.”

Was glucose metabolism impairment established as an inclusion/exclusion criterion? If yes, how was it determined?

Regarding glucose concentration, authors should mention they are measuring “capillary blood glucose” instead of “blood glucose.”

Could authors provide the exact fasting time (e.g., mean and SD). Thank you.

Was a commercial glucose drink used, or "homemade" - please state the source and volume (this information was not provided).

Does the participant have an “acclimation period” prior to the HRV assessment, or did the HRV assessment start immediately after participants were placed in bed/stretcher?

I noticed authors used the low artifact correction filter in the Kubios software. Could the authors better explain why they used this filter? In a relatively recent study (PMID: 31979367), the authors proposed the medium filter for young adults. In this regard, did the authors check whether the results are independent of the Kubios filter used?

AUC calculation: I understood the rationale for computing the AUC using the Tai’s Mathematical Model; however, I wonder whether that AUC calculation provides glucose values as “arbitrary units” or “no units” (as certain AUC calculations [e.g., PMID: 14756916]). Could authors mention this aspect?

The thermic effect of a 75g bolus of glucose was unlikely to have been completed within the 3-hour measurement window - therefore it is possible that some differences in the response may have been missed by not capturing the downward tail of the HRV response curve. Should this not warrant a mention? Moreover, did capillary glucose concentration values return to baseline? If not, do the authors believe this issue could partially explain the results (e.g., absence of associations)? If capillary glucose did not return to baseline levels after 2-h, glucose-stimulation could be influencing the results. I would suggest mention this issue. Finally, could authors provide a figure showing the capillary glucose concentration and across time (i.e., the curve)? Thank you.

Does a protocol of repeated finger-prick collection add to within-subject variability? Capillary blood is notoriously difficult to standardize at each time point of collection, though it may relate to venous values.

Lines 133-135: No information regarding missing data is provided. Although Table 2 included 18 participants, I noticed that Figures (1 – 3) showed 15 participants instead of 18. Please mention this issue.

Why was the menstrual cycle recorded/registered if it was not used for analyses? Did the authors include the menstrual cycle in the analyses (e.g., as a confounder factor for correlations)? If not, I would suggest placing Table 1 as supplementary material or embed it in Table 2.

New analysis: I would suggest repeating the analyses, including heart rate (in beats per minute).

Discussion section:

Lines 173-175: This could be related to the low statistical power/sample size, rather than not an effect was observed. This issue deserves a mention.

Lines 179-181: This threshold is commonly used when blood glucose concentration (i.e., vein samples) is obtained. As I mentioned previously, I would recommend emphasizing that capillary instead of vein glucose concentration was assessed.

Limitation section:

In my opinion, the following should be included: The small sample size should be mentioned in this section. The menstrual cycle should be mentioned as a potential limitation, as women were at different menstrual cycle statuses which could impact the results in an unknown manner. Glucose concentration was assessed by a finger-prick instead of vein collection.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful for refining your manuscript.

Kind regards,

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: GILBERTO IVAN PERPINAN ISEDA

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 5;19(6):e0303346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303346.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Feb 2024

Reviewer #1: 

The authors have found significant correlations between heart rate variability (HRV) markers and

fasting blood glucose levels in healthy individuals. However, they did not find any significant

correlations between HRV markers and the area under the curve (AUC) of glucose. When

analyzing by sex, only men showed significant correlations between AUC and RMSSD, SDNN,

and LF. There were no sex differences for fasting blood glucose levels, AUC, RMSSD, SDNN,

HF, and LF.

However, it is important to note that this is a small study with a limited sample size. a sample

size of at least 30 is recommended for statistical tests because it is large enough to approximate

the true distribution of the population being studied.

The following was changed in the limitations:

“Though this study was a novel attempt to evaluate glucose regulation, it was not without

limitations. This study used a small sample size, which is an inherit limitation regardless of

significant findings. Future studies should use a more robust sample size to better corollate

physical and physiological contributors to HRV based OGTT relationship. Furthermore, this

study was not designed to control for menstrual cycle. Future studies should enroll female

participants in a fashion to control for stage of menstrual cycle. This study used single-day HRV

to predict same-day metabolic function; though appropriate for comparing to same-day OGTT,

this value may be stronger when compared to a weekly average, given the levels of variability

we observed in these markers. The measurement of glucose concentration in this study was

performed using finger-prick, future projects should use vein collection to reduce standard error.

Lastly, plasma insulin may provide additional insight for this study.”

1) Was the HRV derived from ECG with your own algorithm, or it was just getting from the

ECG monitor?

HRV was derived using Kubios software (version 3.0.5). The files collected from the Finapres

NOVA were transferred to Kubios for analysis. The following was edited in the methods to

clarify this more.

“Measurements for the current study were collected using the Finapres NOVA, and ECG files

were transferred to Kubios software (version 3.0.5).”

2) authors should explain why they chose the statistical measures.

“We used parametric stats appropriate for the nature of our data.   Because parametric stats

assume that data are distributed normally, performed a test for normality, to ensure that our data

were indeed distributed normally.  We performed two-tailed correlation analysis to be

conservative in our conclusions. Likewise, we did a two-tailed independent samples t-test to

conservatively compare results between sexes.”

3) The study you provided does not mention the use of a menstrual cycle survey in the

correlations of measures, why did the authors performed that survey, the same for the Urine

Specific Gravity?

Menstrual cycle information was not entered into the correlation due to the low sample size and

was used as observational data. Previous work in our lab suggested a relationship between HRV

and menstrual cycle, so we collected the phase data as a participant characteristic in the event we

observed a sex-based difference. USG was collected for the BIA hydration

Reviewer #2: 

The study by Nickel et al. investigated the impact of oral glucose on the extent of HRV,

considered an important biomarker for metabolic health. The participants were given a 75-g

glucose load, and HRV was measured before its ingestion. Different HRV

calculations/parameters were used to determine its association with the OGTT response

(assessed as the AUC). The results showed that HRV parameters were correlated with capillary

glucose concentration. Considering sex in the statistical model, correlations disappeared in

women but not in men. Furthermore, HRV and AUC parameters were also correlated in the

group of men. The research was properly conducted; methods are appropriate, and results might

have certain implications regarding the HRV field. I have the following constructive comments

that hopefully can further increase the quality of this manuscript.

Method section:

The study was carefully designed and conducted. However, the sample size was small (n=18; 10

men and 8 women). Could authors mention this issue (I missed this information in the Method

section)? As the small sample size included in the study might impact data interpretation. Thank

you.

This information we added to the limitation section.

Could the authors better explain what “apparently healthy individuals” is? Did authors determine

that using blood samples, personal/medical interviews, questionnaires or is self-reported? Please

provide more information as the paper is focused on “healthy individuals.”

“Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined through self-report through the health history

questionnaire”

Was glucose metabolism impairment established as an inclusion/exclusion criterion? If yes, how

was it determined?

Known metabolic conditions were a part of the exclusion criteria and determined through the

self-report HHQ.

Regarding glucose concentration, authors should mention they are measuring “capillary blood

glucose” instead of “blood glucose.”

Fixed

Could authors provide the exact fasting time (e.g., mean and SD). Thank you.

We only confirmed that they had not eaten prior to 12 hours before arriving to the lab, so we do

not have exact times.

Was a commercial glucose drink used, or "homemade" - please state the source and volume (this

information was not provided).

OGTT beverage containing 75 grams of glucose (Trutol TM )

Does the participant have an “acclimation period” prior to the HRV assessment, or did the HRV

assessment start immediately after participants were placed in bed/stretcher?

The following was added:

“on an examination bed” was added to the Experimental Design section.

“The first five minutes of the 10-minute recording were discarded for acclimatation. The last

five minutes of resting time points were analyzed.”

I noticed authors used the low artifact correction filter in the Kubios software. Could the authors

better explain why they used this filter? In a relatively recent study (PMID: 31979367), the

authors proposed the medium filter for young adults. In this regard, did the authors check

whether the results are independent of the Kubios filter used?

We visually inspected each recording for artifact when applying the filters and used the lowest

filter setting possible to avoid augmenting the recording beyond the natural variations that may

occur. The citations we used warned against too strong of filters as it may “over filter” the

recording and lose natural variation. The following was added for clarification:

The Kubios “low artifact correction” filter with a � 0.35 sec sensitivity to R-R abnormalities

compared to the local average was used [12,13].

AUC calculation: I understood the rationale for computing the AUC using the Tai’s

Mathematical Model; however, I wonder whether that AUC calculation provides glucose values

as “arbitrary units” or “no units” (as certain AUC calculations [e.g., PMID: 14756916]). Could

authors mention this aspect?

The reviewer brings up a good point, the unit used in this model was “arbitrary units”, this has

been added into the manuscript and is expressed as AU.

The thermic effect of a 75g bolus of glucose was unlikely to have been completed within the 3-

hour measurement window - therefore it is possible that some differences in the response may

have been missed by not capturing the downward tail of the HRV response curve. Should this not

warrant a mention?

The reviewer makes a good point. The duration of the OGTT used was the standard two hours.

However, we added the following to the limitation section:

Future studies should extend the number of measures glucose time points beyond the two-hour

mark in order to capture the downward tail of the OGTT and capture full glucose clearance.

Moreover, did capillary glucose concentration values return to baseline? If not, do the authors

believe this issue could partially explain the results (e.g., absence of associations)? If capillary

glucose did not return to baseline levels after 2-h, glucose-stimulation could be influencing the

results. I would suggest mention this issue.

Capillary glucose concentration values did not return to baseline (Figure 4). We believe this was

addressed with the change we made with the previous comment.

Finally, could authors provide a figure showing the capillary glucose concentration and across

time (i.e., the curve)? Thank you.

Figure 4 was added for capillary glucose over time

Does a protocol of repeated finger-prick collection add to within-subject variability? Capillary

blood is notoriously difficult to standardize at each time point of collection, though it may relate

to venous values.

This is a good comment and we added the limitation of finger sticks with future work utilizing

venipuncture.

Lines 133-135: No information regarding missing data is provided. Although Table 2 included

18 participants, I noticed that Figures (1 – 3) showed 15 participants instead of 18. Please

mention this issue.

Three participants were dropped due to ECG error, they were removed from analysis and we

accidentally left the total group in the table. Table 2 has been updated and the following was

added:

“Eighteen apparently healthy volunteers completed the study: ten males and eight females. Two

males and one female were removed from data analysis due to artifact or ECG recording error,

15 total participants were analyzed, eight males and seven females.”

Why was the menstrual cycle recorded/registered if it was not used for analyses? Did the authors

include the menstrual cycle in the analyses (e.g., as a confounder factor for correlations)? If not, I

would suggest placing Table 1 as supplementary material or embed it in Table 2.

Menstrual cycle information was not entered into the correlation due to the low sample size and

was used as observational data. Previous work in our lab suggested a relationship between HRV

and menstrual cycle, so we collected the phase data as a participant characteristic in the event we

observed a sex-based difference.

New analysis: I would suggest repeating the analyses, including heart rate (in beats per minute).

RHR correlation data was added to table 3 and results.

Discussion section:

Lines 173-175: This could be related to the low statistical power/sample size, rather than not an

effect was observed. This issue deserves a mention.

Sample size was added as a limitation to the limitation section.

Lines 179-181: This threshold is commonly used when blood glucose concentration (i.e., vein

samples) is obtained. As I mentioned previously, I would recommend emphasizing that capillary

instead of vein glucose concentration was assessed.

The following was edited:

“The participants in this study were considered healthy, normal weight individuals with an

average capillary FBG of 89.9 ± 8.2 mg/dL.”

Limitation section:

In my opinion, the following should be included: The small sample size should be mentioned in

this section. The menstrual cycle should be mentioned as a potential limitation, as women were

at different menstrual cycle statuses which could impact the results in an unknown manner.

Glucose concentration was assessed by a finger-prick instead of vein collection.

The following was changed in the limitations:

“Though this study was a novel attempt to evaluate glucose regulation, it was not without

limitations. This study used a small sample size, which is an inherit limitation regardless of

significant findings. Future studies should use a more robust sample size to better corollate

physical and physiological contributors to HRV based OGTT relationship. Furthermore, this

study was not designed to control for menstrual cycle. Future studies should enroll female

participants in a fashion to control for stage of menstrual cycle. This study used single-day HRV

to predict same-day metabolic function; though appropriate for comparing to same-day OGTT,

this value may be stronger when compared to a weekly average, given the levels of variability

we observed in these markers. The measurement of glucose concentration in this study was

performed using finger-prick, future projects should use vein collection to reduce standard error.

Lastly, plasma insulin may provide additional insight for this study.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: PlosOneReviewer.docx

pone.0303346.s001.docx (20.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Hidetaka Hamasaki

2 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-28922R1The relationship between heart rate variability and glucose clearance in healthy men and womenPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nickel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 17 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hidetaka Hamasaki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the authors for taking the time to make revisions based on my comments and suggestions. Please find below my minor comments and suggestions:

1. I would suggest adding the lack of an exact fasting time to the limitations section, as the authors 'recommended' fasting for ≥ 12 hours, but cannot confirm it.

2. References 12 and 13 are cited to justify Kubios artifacts 'over filter' correction. I would suggest including the following citation (PMID: 31979367) as it addresses this issue.

3. How resting heart rate (RHR) was derived from the ECG signal should be added to the methods section. Additionally, please check the units of RHR in Table 3 (should be bpm instead of bmp).

4. I noticed that information concerning detrending, lambda, and interpolation rate was not provided in the Kubios software description.

5. In the Methods section, when referring to the Fast Fourier Transformation technique, I would suggest changing 'technique' to 'algorithm' for clarity.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 5;19(6):e0303346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303346.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Apr 2024

We have addressed the most recent revisions in the newest 'Reviewer comments' attachment:

We re-examined the data files and found the participant fasting times were Total - 13.1 +/- 1.8 hours, Males - 12.6 +/- 2.1 hours, and Females

- 13.7 +/- 1.2 hours.

The following citation was added:

Alcantara JMA, Plaza-Florido A, Amaro-Gahete FJ, Acosta FM, Migueles JH, Molina-Garcia P,

et al. Impact of Using Different Levels of Threshold-Based Artefact Correction on the

Quantification of Heart Rate Variability in Three Independent Human Cohorts. J Clin Med. 2020

Jan 23;9(2):325.

The following was changed:

Methods: HRV Analysis section

The last five minutes of resting time points were analyzed for HRV and RHR.

Bmp was changed to bpm.

Detrending was set to smoothing priors with a smoothing parameter of 500, lambda of 0.035 Hz,

and Interpolation rate of 4 Hz

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments 2.docx

pone.0303346.s002.docx (15.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Hidetaka Hamasaki

24 Apr 2024

The relationship between heart rate variability and glucose clearance in healthy men and women

PONE-D-23-28922R2

Dear Dr. Kliszczewicz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hidetaka Hamasaki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Hidetaka Hamasaki

14 May 2024

PONE-D-23-28922R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kliszczewicz,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hidetaka Hamasaki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PlosOneReviewer.docx

    pone.0303346.s001.docx (20.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer comments 2.docx

    pone.0303346.s002.docx (15.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data are available from the BioStudies repository at DOI: 10.6019/S-BSST1348 (accession number S-BSST1348).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES