Multi-omics subgroups associated with glycaemic deterioration in type 2 diabetes: an IMI-RHAPSODY Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) onset, progression and outcomes differ substantially between individuals. Multi-omics analyses may allow a deeper understanding of these differences and ultimately facilitate personalised treatments. Here, in an unsupervised "bottom-up" approach, we attempt to group T2D patients based solely on -omics data generated from plasma. Methods: Circulating plasma lipidomic and proteomic data from two independent clinical cohorts, Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) and Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland (GoDARTS), were analysed using Similarity Network Fusion. The resulting patient network was analysed with Logistic and Cox regression modelling to explore relationships between plasma -omic profiles and clinical characteristics. Results: =3.7e-11;2.5e-06, DCS and GoDARTS, respectively; Homeostatic model assessment 2 (HOMA2)-B; -IR; -S, p=0.0008;4.2e-11;1.1e-09, only in DCS). The main molecular signatures separating the two groups included triacylglycerols, sphingomyelin, testican-1 and interleukin 18 receptor. Conclusions: Using an unsupervised network-based fusion method on plasma lipidomics and proteomics data from two independent cohorts, we were able to identify two subgroups of T2D patients differing in terms of disease severity. The molecular signatures identified within these subgroups provide insights into disease mechanisms and possibly new prognostic markers for T2D.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".