Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38765836›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

The borderline effect for diabetes: when no difference makes a difference.

Peter Aungle, Ellen Langer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Peter AungleDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.
Ellen LangerDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We hypothesized that people at the borderline of being labeled as "prediabetic" based on A1c blood test results, who initially face equivalent risks of developing diabetes but who are labeled differently, would be more likely to develop diabetes when labeled as "prediabetic" as a result of the label. Study 1 served to establish the psychological effect of the prediabetes label: we surveyed 260 participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk to test whether risk perception significantly increased when comparing A1c test results that differed by 0.1% and led to different diagnostic labels (5.6 and 5.7%) but did not significantly increase when comparing those that differed by 0.1% but received the same label (5.5%/5.6 and 5.7%/5.8%). Study 2 explored whether labels are associated with different rates of developing diabetes when the initial difference in A1c results suggests equivalent risk. Using data from 8,096 patients, we compared patients whose initial A1c results differed by 0.1% and found those who received results labeled as prediabetic (A1c of 5.7%) were significantly more likely to develop diabetes than patients whose initial results were labeled as normal (5.6%). In contrast, patients whose initial results differed by 0.1% but who received the same "normal" label (5.5 and 5.6%) were equally likely to develop diabetes. These preliminary results suggest that diagnostic labels may become self-fulfilling, especially when the underlying pathology of patients receiving different labels does not meaningfully differ.

Indexed as

diabetesdiagnostic labelsperceived controlperceived riskself-fulfilling beliefs

Identifiers

PMID38765836
PMCPMC11099830

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.