Islet autoantibodies as precision diagnostic tools to characterize heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.027 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".