Novel subgroups of type 2 diabetes based on multi-Omics profiling: an IMI-RHAPSODY Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Type 2 diabetes is a complex, multifactorial disease with varying presentation and underlying pathophysiology. Recent studies using data-driven cluster analysis have led to a stratification of type 2 diabetes into novel subgroups based on six clinical measurements. Whether these subgroups truly correspond to the underlying phenotypic differences is nevertheless unclear. Here, we apply an unsupervised, data-driven clustering method (Similarity Network Fusion) to characterize type 2 diabetes in two independent cohorts involving 1,134 subjects in total based on integrated plasma lipidomics and peptidomics data without pre-selection. Logistic regression was then used to explore clustering based on ≥ 180 circulating lipids and 1,195 protein biomarkers, alongside clinical signatures. Two subgroups were identified, one of which associated with elevated C-peptide levels, diabetic complications and more severe insulin resistance compared to the other. GWAS analysis against 403 type 2 diabetes risk variants revealed associations of several SNPs with clusters and altered molecular profiles. We thus demonstrate that heterogeneity in type 2 diabetes can be captured by circulating omics alone using an unsupervised bottom-up approach. Such multiomics signatures could reflect pathological mechanisms underlying type 2 diabetes and thus may help inform on precision medicine approaches to disease management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".