Phenotypic Characteristics of GAD Antibody-Positive Recently Diagnosed Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in North America and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of patients with type 2 diabetes are GAD antibody positive. A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial (ADOPT) is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial in recently diagnosed drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes that allows for the evaluation of GAD positivity in the context of anthropometric and biochemical characteristics. Of the 4,134 subjects enrolled in ADOPT for whom GAD status was obtained, 174 (4.2%) were GAD positive, with the prevalence of GAD antibodies being similar in North America (4.7%) and Europe (3.7%). Although BMI and age were similar, GAD-positive patients had a lower fasting insulin level, compatible with them being more insulin sensitive. The lower fasting insulin concentration was accompanied by a decreased early insulin response to oral glucose. However, when this insulin response was corrected for the degree of insulin sensitivity, GAD-positive and -negative patients had similar beta-cell function. Consistent with the difference in insulin sensitivity, GAD-positive patients had higher HDL cholesterol and lower triglyceride levels. In the GAD-positive individuals, the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome as defined by NCEP ATP III (National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III) was also lower (74.1 vs. 83.7%, P = 0.0009). These phenotypic differences may underlie a potential difference in the natural history of hyperglycemia and its clinical outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".