ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
A non-invasive method for screening mitochondrial diabetes.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unrecognized mitochondrial diabetes cases in a group of patients with type 2 diabetes.Acta diabetologica · 2026Article
- Clinical Validation of Digital PCR for Precise m.3243A>G Heteroplasmy Quantification in Early-Onset Diabetes.Journal of diabetes research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mitochondrial diabetes mellitus (MDM) is a special type of diabetes resulting from functional defects in mitochondria. Its incidence rate is low, and it can often be misdiagnosed as either type 1 or type 2 diabetes in clinical settings. Due to limited clinical experience in diagnosing and treating MDM, the rate of missed diagnosis is high. Therefore, employing appropriate detection methods for the rapid screening of suspected MDM patients can facilitate early diagnosis of MDM. Methods: We conducted a multicenter observational study by collecting oral exfoliated cells from patients and detecting the m.3243A>G mutation using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). We estimated the positivity rate of MDM and clinically evaluated the detection method through clinical trials. Additionally, we summarized the clinical phenotypes of patients who tested positive and compared the clinical manifestations between MDM and non-MDM patients using statistical analysis, providing a diagnostic foundation for clinicians. Results: We collected data from a total of 478 patients and identified 16 cases of m.3243A>G mutation-positive patients by collecting oral exfoliated cell samples for PCR testing, yielding a positivity rate of 3.35% and an asymptomatic carrier rate of 0.84%. These results are slightly higher than those reported in previous research. The gene mutation detection method demonstrated high credibility and was non-invasive, with a clinical sensitivity of 87.2% and clinical specificity of 96.9%. Additionally, patient satisfaction was high in this study. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in clinical manifestations between MDM and non-MDM patients. MDM patients were more likely to experience neurological hearing loss and multiple systemic manifestations, and their condition was consistent with maternal inheritance, in line with previous research findings. Conclusion: The detection of the m.3243A>G mutation through the collection of oral exfoliated cells offers several advantages over other methods, including simplicity, non-invasiveness, and high specificity and sensitivity. However, it is currently underutilized. Therefore, further experiments are needed to study and validate this approach in order to optimize MDM screening methods and improve diagnostic rates for MDM.
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.