A Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Score Can Aid Discrimination Between Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With rising obesity, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in young adults. There has been substantial recent progress in identifying the contribution of common genetic variants to T1D and T2D. We aimed to determine whether a score generated from common genetic variants could be used to discriminate between T1D and T2D and also to predict severe insulin deficiency in young adults with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We developed genetic risk scores (GRSs) from published T1D- and T2D-associated variants. We first tested whether the scores could distinguish clinically defined T1D and T2D from the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium (WTCCC) (n = 3,887). We then assessed whether the T1D GRS correctly classified young adults (diagnosed at 20-40 years of age, the age-group with the most diagnostic difficulty in clinical practice; n = 223) who progressed to severe insulin deficiency <3 years from diagnosis. RESULTS: In the WTCCC, the T1D GRS, based on 30 T1D-associated risk variants, was highly discriminative of T1D and T2D (area under the curve [AUC] 0.88 [95% CI 0.87-0.89]; P < 0.0001), and the T2D GRS added little discrimination (AUC 0.89). A T1D GRS >0.280 (>50th centile in those with T1D) is indicative of T1D (50% sensitivity, 95% specificity). A low T1D GRS (<0.234, <5th centile T1D) is indicative of T2D (53% sensitivity, 95% specificity). Most discriminative ability was obtained from just nine single nucleotide polymorphisms (AUC 0.87). In young adults with diabetes, T1D GRS alone predicted progression to insulin deficiency (AUC 0.87 [95% CI 0.82-0.92]; P < 0.0001). T1D GRS, autoantibody status, and clinical features were independent and additive predictors of severe insulin deficiency (combined AUC 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.99]; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A T1D GRS can accurately identify young adults with diabetes who will require insulin treatment. This will be an important addition to correctly classifying individuals with diabetes when clinical features and autoimmune markers are equivocal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".