Impact of the Exposome in Type 1 Diabetes: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recent increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes (T1D) over the past few decades has been too rapid to be explained solely by genetic factors. It is likely influenced by environmental factors as well. Understanding these environmental factors, the exposome, is essential for identifying new disease prevention and management strategies. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to present a protocol for a scoping review to gather current knowledge on the various dimensions of the exposome relevant to the development and outcomes of T1D, highlight existing knowledge gaps, and provide a foundation for future research. METHODS: We will follow principles from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We will search for relevant publications in 5 databases: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science (Clarivate), and Google Scholar. All studies on the impact of environmental exposures on T1D development or acute (hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia) and chronic (cardiovascular disease, retinopathy, neuropathy, and others) T1D complications will be collected. Two independent reviewers will then use the CADIMA (Client-Server Application for Documentation and Integrated Management of All Steps of a Systematic Review) web tool to screen records for titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data will be extracted from eligible studies by 2 independent reviewers by using a data extraction sheet, including relevant information from the eligible studies helping to answer the research question. The data extraction sheet will be completed together with a quality assessment by using JBI and other relevant tools before the synthesis of all the relevant results. Numerical and visual results will be presented using descriptive summaries to organize, describe, and interpret the findings. We will also provide a narrative synthesis of the main results focused on our objectives. This scoping review is registered with the Open Science Framework. RESULTS: The scoping review started in November 2024. The analysis is expected to be completed and the results submitted for publication in November 2025. The final review will report on all the studies identified and synthesized in accordance with the predefined protocol. Concerning all types of exposure, we expect to find more aspects of the specific external exposome (eg, pollutants, diet, infectious agents), particularly in young populations (children, adolescents) and possibly in utero exposition, linked to the trigger of the disease rather than in developing diabetes complications. CONCLUSIONS: By covering the different aspects and stages of the disease, this literature review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the different effects of the components from the exposome in relation to T1D. This scoping review will help the scientific community understand the various aspects of the exposome in the development of T1D and its consequences. The results will be released as a peer-reviewed open-access publication and during congresses and conferences to reach the scientific community and the general public. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/UJ5KM; https://osf.io/uj5km. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/73424.
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 | 0.139 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.021 |
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".