The Prediction of Type 1 Diabetes by Multiple Autoantibody Levels and Their Incorporation Into an Autoantibody Risk Score in Relatives of Type 1 Diabetic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed whether a risk score that incorporates levels of multiple islet autoantibodies could enhance the prediction of type 1 diabetes (T1D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: TrialNet Natural History Study participants (n = 784) were tested for three autoantibodies (GADA, IA-2A, and mIAA) at their initial screening. Samples from those positive for at least one autoantibody were subsequently tested for ICA and ZnT8A. An autoantibody risk score (ABRS) was developed from a proportional hazards model that combined autoantibody levels from each autoantibody along with their designations of positivity and negativity. RESULTS: The ABRS was strongly predictive of T1D (hazard ratio [with 95% CI] 2.72 [2.23-3.31], P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic curve areas (with 95% CI) for the ABRS revealed good predictability (0.84 [0.78-0.90] at 2 years, 0.81 [0.74-0.89] at 3 years, P < 0.001 for both). The composite of levels from the five autoantibodies was predictive of T1D before and after an adjustment for the positivity or negativity of autoantibodies (P < 0.001). The findings were almost identical when ICA was excluded from the risk score model. The combination of the ABRS and the previously validated Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 Risk Score (DPTRS) predicted T1D more accurately (0.93 [0.88-0.98] at 2 years, 0.91 [0.83-0.99] at 3 years) than either the DPTRS or the ABRS alone (P ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show the importance of considering autoantibody levels in assessing the risk of T1D. Moreover, levels of multiple autoantibodies can be incorporated into an ABRS that accurately predicts T1D.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".