Associations between diabetes-related genetic risk scores and residual beta cell function in type 1 diabetes: the GUTDM1 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Use of genetic risk scores (GRS) may help to distinguish between type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, but less is known about whether GRS are associated with disease severity or progression after diagnosis. Therefore, we tested whether GRS are associated with residual beta cell function and glycaemic control in individuals with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: 55.6 ± 12.2 mmol/mol). Several GRS, which were originally developed to assess genetic risk of type 1 diabetes (GRS-1, GRS-2) and type 2 diabetes (GRS-T2D), were calculated. GRS-C1 and GRS-C2 were based on SNPs that have previously been shown to be associated with residual beta cell function. Regression models were used to investigate the association between GRS and residual beta cell function, assessed using the urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio, and the association between GRS and continuous glucose monitor metrics. RESULTS: Higher GRS-1 and higher GRS-2 both showed a significant association with undetectable UCPCR (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.69, 0.89 and OR 0.84: 95% CI 0.75, 0.93, respectively), which were attenuated after correction for sex and age of onset (GRS-2) and disease duration (GRS-1). Higher GRS-C2 was associated with detectable urinary C-peptide/creatinine ratio (≥0.01 nmol/mmol) after correction for sex and age of onset (OR 6.95; 95% CI 1.19, 40.75). A higher GRS-T2D was associated with less time below range (TBR) (OR for TBR<4% 1.41; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.96) and lower glucose coefficient of variance (β -1.53; 95% CI -2.76, -0.29). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Diabetes-related GRS are associated with residual beta cell function in individuals with type 1 diabetes. These findings suggest some genetic contribution to preservation of beta cell function.
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 | 0.001 | 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".