ArticleBMJ public health2023
Sick individuals, sick populations revisited: a test of the Rose hypothesis for type 2 diabetes disparities.
Article in BMJ public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The Rose hypothesis predicts that since genetic variation is greater within than between populations, genetic risk factors will be associated with individuals' risk of disease but not population disparities, and since socioenvironmental variation is greater between than within populations, socioenvironmental risk factors will be associated with population disparities but not individuals' disease risk. Methods: We used the UK Biobank to test the Rose hypothesis for type 2 diabetes (T2D) ethnic disparities in the UK. Our cohort consists of 26 912 participants from Asian, black and white ethnic groups. Participants were characterised as T2D cases or controls based on the presence or absence of T2D diagnosis codes in electronic health records. T2D genetic risk was measured using a polygenic risk score (PRS), and socioeconomic deprivation was measured with the Townsend Index (TI). The variation of genetic (PRS) and socioeconomic (TI) risk factors within and between ethnic groups was calculated using analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression was used to associate PRS and TI with T2D cases, and mediation analysis was used to analyse the effect of PRS and TI on T2D ethnic group disparities. Results: T2D prevalence differs for Asian 23.34% (OR=5.14, CI=4.68 to 5.65), black 16.64% (OR=3.81, CI=3.44 to 4.22) and white 7.35% (reference) ethnic groups in the UK. Both genetic and socioenvironmental T2D risk factors show greater within (w) than between (b) ethnic group variation: PRS w=64.60%, b=35.40%; TI w=71.18%, b=28.19%. Nevertheless, both genetic risk (PRS OR=1.96, CI=1.87 to 2.07) and socioeconomic deprivation (TI OR=1.09, CI=1.08 to 1.10) are associated with T2D individual risk and mediate T2D ethnic disparities (Asian PRS=22.5%, TI=9.8%; black PRS=32.0%, TI=25.3%). Conclusion: A relative excess of within-group versus between-group variation does not preclude T2D risk factors from contributing to T2D ethnic disparities. Our results support an integrative approach to health disparities research that includes both genetic and socioenvironmental risk factors.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.