Monogenic Causes in the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium Cohort: Low Genetic Risk for Autoimmunity in Case Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: About 1% of patients clinically diagnosed as type 1 diabetes have non-autoimmune monogenic diabetes. The distinction has important therapeutic implications but, given the low prevalence and high cost of testing, selecting patients to test is important. We tested the hypothesis that low genetic risk for type 1 diabetes can substantially contribute to this selection. METHODS: As proof of principle, we examined by exome sequencing families with 2 or more children, recruited by the Type 1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium (T1DGC) and selected for negativity for 2 autoantibodies and absence of risk human leukocyte antigen haplotypes. RESULTS: We examined 46 families that met the criteria. Of the 17 with an affected parent, 7 (41.2%) had actionable monogenic variants. Of 29 families with no affected parent, 14 (48.3%) had such variants, including 5 with recessive pathogenic variants of WFS1 but no report of other features of Wolfram syndrome. Our approach diagnosed 55.8% of the estimated number of monogenic families in the entire T1DGC cohort, by sequencing only 11.1% of the autoantibody-negative ones. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings justify proceeding to large-scale prospective screening studies using markers of autoimmunity, even in the absence of an affected parent. We also confirm that nonsyndromic WFS1 variants are common among cases of monogenic diabetes misdiagnosed as type 1 diabetes.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".