The use of precision diagnostics for monogenic diabetes: a systematic review and expert opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Monogenic diabetes presents opportunities for precision medicine but is underdiagnosed. This review systematically assessed the evidence for (1) clinical criteria and (2) methods for genetic testing for monogenic diabetes, summarized resources for (3) considering a gene or (4) variant as causal for monogenic diabetes, provided expert recommendations for (5) reporting of results; and reviewed (6) next steps after monogenic diabetes diagnosis and (7) challenges in precision medicine field. Methods Pubmed and Embase databases were searched (1990-2022) using inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies that sequenced one or more monogenic diabetes genes in at least 100 probands (Question 1), evaluated a non-obsolete genetic testing method to diagnose monogenic diabetes (Question 2). The risk of bias was assessed using the revised QUADAS-2 tool. Existing guidelines were summarized for questions 3-5, and review of studies for questions 6-7, supplemented by expert recommendations. Results were summarized in tables and informed recommendations for clinical practice. Results There are 100, 32, 36, and 14 studies included for questions 1, 2, 6, and 7 respectively. On this basis, four recommendations for who to test and five on how to test for monogenic diabetes are provided. Existing guidelines for variant curation and gene-disease validity curation are summarized. Reporting by gene names is recommended as an alternative to the term MODY. Key steps after making a genetic diagnosis and major gaps in our current knowledge are highlighted. Conclusions We provide a synthesis of current evidence and expert opinion on how to use precision diagnostics to identify individuals with monogenic diabetes.
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 | 0.047 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".