4.7 Article

A risk score for type 1 diabetes derived from autoantibody-positive participants in the diabetes prevention trial-type-1

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 528-533

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1459

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [UC4 DK117009] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - The accurate prediction of type 1 diabetes is essential for appropriately identifying prevention trial participants. Thus, we have developed a risk score for the prediction of type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) participants, islet cell autoantibody (ICA)-positive relatives of type 1 diabetic patients (n = 670), were randomly divided into development and validation samples. Risk score values were calculated for the validation sample from development sample model coefficients obtained through forward stepwise proportional hazards regression. RESULTS - A risk score based on a model including log-BMI, age, log-fasting C-peptide, and postchallenae glucose and C-peptide sums from 2-h oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) was derived from the development sample. The baseline risk score strongly predicted type 1 diabetes in the validation sample (chi(2) = 82.3, P < 0.001). Its strength of prediction was almost the same (chi(2) = 83.3) as a risk score additionally dependent on a decreased first-phase insulin response variable from intravenous glucose tolerance tests (IVGTTs). Biochemical autoantibodies did not contribute significantly to the risk score model. A final type 1 diabetes risk score was then derived from all participants with the same variables as those in the development sample model. The change in the type 1 diabetes risk score from baseline to 1 year was in itself also highly predictive of type 1 diabetes (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS - A risk score based on age, BMI, and OGTT indexes, without dependence on IVGTTs or additional autoantibodies, appears to accurately predict type 1 diabetes in ICA-positive relatives.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据