ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2025
Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Scores: History, Application and Future Directions.
Review in Current diabetes reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Body Size on Preclinical Type 1 Diabetes Development and Progression.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- Article
- Mitochondrial dysfunction in type 1 diabetes and its implications for pancreatic beta-cell survival and insulin secretion.Acta diabetologica · 2026Review
- Article
- Research progress and application prospects of multi-omics integration strategies in precision risk stratification of type 1 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Understanding the Increasing Prevalence of Obesity in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: Strategies for Improving Clinical Care.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2025Review
- Psychological Impact of Screening for Risk of Type 1 Diabetes: an Update.Current diabetes reports · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo review the genetics of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and T1D genetic risk scores, focusing on their development, research and clinical applications, and future directions. RECENT
findingsMore than 90 genetic loci have been linked to T1D risk, with approximately half of the genetic risk attributable to the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus, along with non-HLA loci that have smaller effects to disease risk. The practical use of T1D genetic risk scores simplifies the complex genetic information, within the HLA and non-HLA regions, by combining the additive effect and interactions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with risk. Genetic risk scores have proven to be useful in various aspects, including classifying diabetes (e.g., distinguishing between T1D vs. neonatal, type 2 or other diabetes types), predicting the risk of developing T1D, assessing the prognosis of the clinical course (e.g., determining the risk of developing insulin dependence and glycemic control), and research into the heterogeneity of diabetes (e.g., atypical diabetes). However, there are gaps in our current knowledge including the specific sets of genes that regulate transition between preclinical stages of T1D, response to disease modifying therapies, and other outcomes of interest such as persistence of beta cell function. Several T1D genetic risk scores have been developed and shown to be valuable in various contexts, from classification of diabetes to providing insights into its etiology and predicting T1D risk across different stages of T1D. Further research is needed to develop and validate T1D genetic risk scores that are effective across all populations and ancestries. Finally, barriers such as cost, and training of medical professionals have to be addressed before the use of genetic risk scores can be incorporated into routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39920466What 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.