Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37812285›Full record

ArticleActa diabetologica2024

Identification of monogenic diabetes in an Australian cohort using the Exeter maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) probability calculator and next-generation sequencing gene panel testing.

Sunita M C De Sousa, Kathy H C Wu, Kevin Colclough, Lesley Rawlings, Andrew Dubowsky, Melissa Monnik, Nicola Poplawski, Hamish S Scott, Michael Horowitz, David J Torpy

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta diabetologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sunita M C De SousaEndocrine and Metabolic Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. Sunita.DeSousa@sa.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0127-6482
Kathy H C WuClinical Genomics, St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Kevin ColcloughExeter Genomics Laboratory, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Lesley RawlingsDepartment of Genetics and Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia.
Andrew DubowskyDepartment of Genetics and Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia.
Melissa MonnikAdult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Nicola PoplawskiAdult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Hamish S ScottAdelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Michael HorowitzEndocrine and Metabolic Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
David J TorpyEndocrine and Metabolic Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Royal Adelaide Hospital · AUSouth Australia Pathology · AURoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study aims to describe the prevalence of monogenic diabetes in an Australian referral cohort, in relation to Exeter maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) probability calculator (EMPC) scores and next-generation sequencing with updated testing where relevant.

methodsState-wide 5-year retrospective cohort study of individuals referred for monogenic diabetes genetic testing.

resultsAfter excluding individuals who had cascade testing for a familial variant (21) or declined research involvement (1), the final cohort comprised 40 probands. Incorporating updated testing, the final genetic result was positive (likely pathogenic/pathogenic variant) in 11/40 (27.5%), uncertain (variant of uncertain significance) in 8/40 (20%) and negative in 21/40 (52.5%) participants. Causative variants were found in GCK, HNF1A, MT-TL1 and HNF4A. Variants of uncertain significance included a novel multi-exonic GCK duplication. Amongst participants with EMPC scores ≥ 25%, a causative variant was identified in 37%. Cascade testing was positive in 9/10 tested relatives with diabetes and 0/6 tested relatives with no history of diabetes.

conclusionsContemporary genetic testing produces a high yield of positive results in individuals with clinically suspected monogenic diabetes and their relatives with diabetes, highlighting the value of genetic testing for this condition. An EMPC score cutoff of ≥ 25% correctly yielded a positive predictive value of ≥ 25% in this multiethnic demographic. This is the first Australian study to describe EMPC scores in the Australian clinic setting, albeit a biased referral cohort. Larger studies may help characterise EMPC performance between ethnic subsets, noting differences in the expected probability of monogenic diabetes relative to type 2 diabetes.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2AustraliaGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMutationProbabilityRetrospective StudiesGenetic testingMaturity-onset diabetes of the youngMitochondrial diabetesMonogenic diabetesNext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID37812285
PMCPMC10866744
OpenAlexW4387440350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.