MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394014299 · doi:10.1038/s43856-024-00478-y

Islet autoantibodies as precision diagnostic tools to characterize heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4394014299 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of ManitobaUniversité de SherbrookeMcMaster UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineImpactUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesLunds UniversitetDiabetes UKDepartment of Health and Social CareMcMaster UniversityEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesNovo NordiskNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchAmerican Diabetes AssociationBall Brothers FoundationU.S. Department of Veterans AffairsNovo Nordisk FondenLeona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable TrustGeorge and Frances Ball Foundation
KeywordsAutoantibodyIsletType 1 diabetesType 2 diabetesMedicineSystematic reviewComputational biologyDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineData scienceComputer scienceMEDLINEBiologyImmunologyEndocrinologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Islet autoantibodies form the foundation for type 1 diabetes (T1D) diagnosis and staging, but heterogeneity exists in T1D development and presentation. We hypothesized that autoantibodies can identify heterogeneity before, at, and after T1D diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies. METHODS: We systematically reviewed PubMed and EMBASE databases (6/14/2022) assessing 10 years of original research examining relationships between autoantibodies and heterogeneity before, at, after diagnosis, and in response to disease-modifying therapies in individuals at-risk or within 1 year of T1D diagnosis. A critical appraisal checklist tool for cohort studies was modified and used for risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Here we show that 152 studies that met extraction criteria most commonly characterized heterogeneity before diagnosis (91/152). Autoantibody type/target was most frequently examined, followed by autoantibody number. Recurring themes included correlations of autoantibody number, type, and titers with progression, differing phenotypes based on order of autoantibody seroconversion, and interactions with age and genetics. Only 44% specifically described autoantibody assay standardization program participation. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence most strongly supports the application of autoantibody features to more precisely define T1D before diagnosis. Our findings support continued use of pre-clinical staging paradigms based on autoantibody number and suggest that additional autoantibody features, particularly in relation to age and genetic risk, could offer more precise stratification. To improve reproducibility and applicability of autoantibody-based precision medicine in T1D, we propose a methods checklist for islet autoantibody-based manuscripts which includes use of precision medicine MeSH terms and participation in autoantibody standardization workshops.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it