Performance of HbA1c as an Early Diagnostic Indicator of Type 1 Diabetes in Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate HbA(1c) as an alternative criterion for impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or type 1 diabetes (T1D) in high-risk subjects <21 years of age. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subjects <21 years of age who participated in the prospective DPT-1, TEDDY, TRIGR, and Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet Natural History (TrialNet) studies and had an HbA(1c) within 90 days of an OGTT with a 2-h plasma glucose (2-hPG) measure were included. An OGTT of 140-199 mg/dL defined IGT, and an OGTT with 2-hPG ≥200 mg/dL or fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dL defined diabetes. HbA(1c) ≥5.7% defined IGT, and HbA(1c) ≥ 6.5% defined diabetes. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess diagnostic accuracy of HbA(1c) compared with OGTT. RESULTS: There were 587 subjects from DPT-1, 884 from TrialNet, 91 from TEDDY, and 420 from TRIGR. As an indicator for IGT, HbA(1c) sensitivity was very low across the studies (8-42%), and specificity was variable (64-95%). With HbA(1c) ≥6.5% threshold used for T1D diagnosis, the sensitivity was very low and specificity was high (sensitivity and specificity: DPT-1 24 and 98%, TrialNet 28 and 99%, TEDDY 34 and 98%, and TRIGR 33 and 99%, respectively). The positive predictive value of HbA(1c) ≥6.5% for the development of T1D was variable (50-94%) across the four studies. CONCLUSIONS: HbA(1c) ≥6.5% is a specific but not sensitive early indicator for T1D in high-risk subjects <21 years of age diagnosed by OGTT or asymptomatic hyperglycemia. Redefining the HbA(1c) threshold is recommended if used as an alternative criterion in diagnosing 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 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".