Combining genetic markers and clinical risk factors improves the risk assessment of impaired glucose metabolism
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although several candidate gene polymorphisms (SNPs) have been associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), relatively few studies have assessed the ability of T2DM candidate genes to assess the risk of impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and T2DM beyond the information provided by clinical risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To test whether the inclusion of genetic markers in a regression model provides a better assessment of the risk of IFG, IGT, and T2DM than a model based only on non-genetic risk factors commonly assessed in clinical settings. METHODS: Subjects (n = 485; 213 parents, 272 offspring) from the Quebec Family Study, not known to haveT2DM, were measured for several risk factors and underwent an oral glucose tolerance test. Thirty-eight SNPs in 25 susceptibility/ candidate genes previously reported to be associated with T2DM were genotyped. In order to identify risk factors associated with IFG/IGT/T2DM, two logistic regression models were tested: a full model (FM) including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, smoking status, and the 38 SNPs; and a reduced model (RM), in which the SNPs were dropped, which allowed us to test the null-hypothesis that the markers are not associated with the risk of IFG/IGT/T2DM. Performances of the models were compared by using a likelihood ratio test and the receiver-operating characteristic curves (ROC).The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated from the ROC curve. RESULTS: The analyses showed that age (P < 0.0001), BMI (P < 0.0001), and six variants (IGF2BP2 rs4402960, P = 0.002; ADIPOQ+276 G>T, P = 0.004; UCP2Ala55Val, P = 0.01; CDKN2AI2B rs3731201, P = 0.02; rs495490, P = 0.02, and rsl 0811661, P = 0.03) were significantly associated with the risk of IFG/IGT/T2DM. Dropping genetic markers from the analysis significantly reduced the fit of the model to the data (chi-square = 38.98, P < 0.00001 contrasting RM to FM), suggesting that the genetic markers are significantly associated with the risk of IFG/IGT/T2DM. Furthermore, the AUC was higher for FM than for RM (0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.89) versus 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.85), P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that combining genetic markers with traditional clinical risk factors has the potential to improve our ability to assess the risk of complex diseases such as T2DM.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».