MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of the baseline metabolic profiles between Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 and TrialNet Natural History Study participants

2010· article· en· W2011107387 on OpenAlex
Jay M. Sosenko, Jeffrey L. Mahon, Lisa Rafkin, John M. Lachin, Heidi Krause‐Steinrauf, Jeffrey P. Krischer, David Cuthbertson, Jerry P. Palmer, Clinton Thompson, Carla J. Greenbaum, Jay S. Skyler

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Diabetes · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAutoantibodyType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusPrediabetesNatural historyLogistic regressionType 1 diabetesCohortProspective cohort studyImpaired fasting glucoseEndocrinologyImpaired glucose toleranceImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sosenko JM, Mahon J, Rafkin L, Lachin JM, Krause-Steinrauf H, Krischer JP, Cuthbertson D, Palmer JP, Thompson C, Greenbaum CJ, Skyler JS, the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 and TrialNet Study Groups. A comparison of the baseline metabolic profiles between Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 and TrialNet Natural History Study participants. Objective: We assessed whether differing autoantibody screening criteria for type 1 diabetes (T1D) prevention trials result in different baseline metabolic profiles of those who screen positive. Methods: Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) participants were screened for islet cell autoantibodies, whereas TrialNet Natural History Study (TNNHS) participants were screened for biochemical autoantibodies. In both studies, those determined to be autoantibody positive underwent baseline oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in which glucose and C-peptide were measured. Results: The percentage of those with an OGTT in the diabetic range was higher among the DPT-1 participants (10.0% of 956 vs. 6.4% of 645, p < 0.01). In a logistic regression analysis with adjustments for age and gender, the difference persisted (p < 0.01). Among those in the non-diabetic range (n = 860 for DPT-1 and n = 604 for the TNNHS), glucose levels were similar at all time points, except for higher fasting glucose levels in the TNNHS participants (p < 0.001). There was a higher percentage of impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in the TNNHS participants (10.9 vs. 6.7%, p < 0.01); however, with adjustments for age and gender, there was no longer a significant difference. There was no significant difference in the percentages with impaired glucose tolerance. C-peptide levels were much lower in the DPT-1 cohort at all OGTT time points (p < 0.001 for all). Discussion: Differing criteria for autoantibody screening can result in marked differences in the baseline metabolic profiles of prospective participants of T1D prevention trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it