MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400776210 · doi:10.1038/s43856-024-00556-1

Precision treatment of beta-cell monogenic diabetes: a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4400776210 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of ManitobaUniversité de SherbrookeMcMaster UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineImpactUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNovo Nordisk FondenNational Institutes of HealthEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesSteno Diabetes Center AarhusWellcome TrustAgence Nationale de la RechercheHelsingin YliopistoLunds UniversitetNovo NordiskAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsBETA (programming language)Diabetes mellitusBeta cellMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEComputational biologyInternal medicineComputer scienceBiologyEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Beta-cell monogenic forms of diabetes have strong support for precision medicine. We systematically analyzed evidence for precision treatments for GCK-related hyperglycemia, HNF1A-, HNF4A- and HNF1B-diabetes, and mitochondrial diabetes (MD) due to m.3243 A > G variant, 6q24-transient neonatal diabetes mellitus (TND) and SLC19A2-diabetes. METHODS: The search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for individual and group level data for glycemic outcomes using inclusion (English, original articles written after 1992) and exclusion (VUS, multiple diabetes types, absent/aggregated treatment effect measures) criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using NHLBI study-quality assessment tools. Data extracted from Covidence were summarized and presented as descriptive statistics in tables and text. RESULTS: There are 146 studies included, with only six being experimental studies. For GCK-related hyperglycemia, the six studies (35 individuals) assessing therapy discontinuation show no HbA1c deterioration. A randomized trial (18 individuals per group) shows that sulfonylureas (SU) were more effective in HNF1A-diabetes than in type 2 diabetes. Cohort and case studies support SU's effectiveness in lowering HbA1c. Two cross-over trials (each with 15-16 individuals) suggest glinides and GLP-1 receptor agonists might be used in place of SU. Evidence for HNF4A-diabetes is limited. Most reported patients with HNF1B-diabetes (N = 293) and MD (N = 233) are on insulin without treatment studies. Limited data support oral agents after relapse in 6q24-TND and for thiamine improving glycemic control and reducing/eliminating insulin requirement in SLC19A2-diabetes. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence, and with moderate or serious risk of bias, to guide monogenic diabetes treatment. Further evidence is needed to examine the optimum treatment in monogenic subtypes.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.276 · 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