Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39821340›Full record

ArticleActa diabetologica2025

Improving detection of monogenic diabetes through reanalysis of GCK variants of uncertain significance.

Sunita M C De Sousa, Jennifer M N Phan, Amanda Wells, Kathy H C Wu, Hamish S Scott

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta diabetologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sunita M C De SousaAdelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Sunita.DeSousa@sa.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0127-6482
Jennifer M N PhanDepartment of Genetics & Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia.
Amanda WellsDepartment of Genetics & Molecular Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia.
Kathy H C WuClinical Genomics, St Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, Australia.
Hamish S ScottAdelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo assess the utility of reanalysing GCK variants of uncertain significance (VUS) as an intervention to improve the detection of monogenic diabetes.

methodsWe examined GCK VUS in a local cohort of individuals with suspected monogenic diabetes and re-curated each variant against the recent ClinGen GCK-specific variant classification guidelines.

resultsVariant reanalysis achieved a new 'likely pathogenic' classification (i.e., positive results) in 4/8 identified VUS. The single most common newly applied criterion indicating variant pathogenicity was a confirmed phenotype of GCK-hyperglycaemia. RNA sequencing and segregation studies were performed in two cases but not additive to reclassification.

conclusionsThis is the first VUS reclassification study in monogenic diabetes using gene-specific guidelines. Within the limits of this small study, we observed a high rate (50%) of VUS upgrades to a positive result, thereby confirming the utility of VUS reanalysis- particularly with biochemical phenotyping- in increasing the detection of monogenic diabetes. We recommend HbA1c, fasting blood glucose and either pancreatic autoantibody negativity or a small oral glucose tolerance test increment as a feasible minimum dataset to inform variant classification at the individual patient level, noting the ongoing work of the ClinGen Monogenic Diabetes Expert Panel in systematically reviewing GCK variants at the international level.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusGerminal Center KinasesGlucokinaseAdultBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGenetic VariationHumansMaleMiddle AgedBlood GlucoseGerminal Center KinasesGlucokinaseDNA sequencingGeneticsGlucokinaseMonogenic diabetes

Identifiers

PMID39821340
PMCPMC12364959

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.