ArticleScientific reports2025
Investigating misclassification of type 1 diabetes in a population-based cohort of British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis using polygenic risk scores.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Utility of a Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Score Measured as Part of MODY Genetic Testing.Diabetes care · 2026Article
- Genetic basis of early onset and progression of type 2 diabetes in South Asians.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Perceived risk of type 2 diabetes: Using linked genomic, clinical and questionnaire data to understand the potential use of genetic risk tools in British South Asians.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Correct classification of type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) is challenging due to overlapping clinical features and the increasingly early onset of T2D, particularly in South Asians. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for T1D and T2D have been shown to work relatively well in South Asians, despite being derived from largely European-ancestry samples. Here we used PRSs to investigate the rate of potential misclassification of diabetes amongst British Bangladeshis and Pakistanis. Using linked health records from the Genes & Health cohort (n = 38,344) we defined two reference groups meeting stringent diagnostic criteria: 31 T1D cases, 1842 T2D cases, and after excluding these, two further groups: 839 insulin-treated diabetic individuals with ambiguous features and 5174 non-diabetic controls. Combining these with 307 confirmed T1D cases and 307 controls from India, we calculated ancestry-corrected PRSs for T1D and T2D, with which we estimated the proportion of T1D cases within the ambiguous group at ~ 6%, dropping to ~ 4.5% within the subset who had T2D codes in their health records (and are thus most likely to have been misclassified). We saw no significant association between the T1D or T2D PRS and BMI at diagnosis, time to insulin, or the presence of T1D or T2D diagnostic codes amongst the T2D or ambiguous cases, suggesting that these clinical features are not particularly helpful for aiding diagnosis in ambiguous cases. Our results emphasise that robust identification of T1D cases and appropriate clinical care may require routine measurement of diabetes autoantibodies and C-peptide.
Indexed as
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.